House of Commons - Defence - Written Evidence

Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence

Further memorandum from the Ministry of Defence

STATISTICS ON DISCIPLINE AND OTHER MATTERS

Note: Royal Marines are included in RN figures for the periods they are subject to the NDA and in the Army figures for the periods they are subject to the Army Act.

1. SUMMARY HEARINGS/TRIALS AND POWERS

(a) Summary hearings/trials—by type and number of offences

Year Offence Type RN Army RAF

2001 Violence 132 620 46

Absence 1,095 2,339 384

Theft/Fraud 43 134 29

Sexual 3 3 0

Drink/Drugs 359 1,377 73

Military/Other 1,392 9,888 385

Total 3,024 14,362 930

2002 Violence 128 494 56

Absence 1,088 2,480 597

Theft/Fraud 28 102 32

Sexual 2 12 0

Drink/Drugs 309 1,297 129

Military/Other 1,378 10,339 631

Total 2,933 14,724 1,483

2003 Violence 153 444 69

Absence 1,344 2,549 508

Theft/Fraud 52 103 26

Sexual 0 7 0

Drink/Drugs 341 1,345 123

Military/Other 1,756 9,368 587

Total 3,646 13,816 1,335

Notes:

1. Figures include trials/hearings by ASAs. Army ASAs: 2001—59; 2002—42; 2003—60. RN: 2001—NK; 2002—12; 2003—18 (there are few RN ASAs as RN COs can deal with some officers and WOs). RAF: 2001—5; 2002—8; 2003—6.

2. Services collect data in different ways, there is no agreed classification of offences and the data is not complete in all cases. RN only began collecting statistics for summary offences in April 2001 and the figures for 2002 are known to be incomplete. All figures relate to the number of offences proven; trials/hearings for an individual can involve more than one offence. The above figures can therefore only give an indication of the numbers and types of offence.

3. Neither the Army nor the RAF hold records of charges dismissed by COs as the outcome of a summary hearing. For the RN, the numbers are uncertain, but it is known that one individual was acquitted in 2002 and five in 2003.

4. No records are held by the RN or the RAF of the number of cases leading to prosecution. The Army is checking whether the Provost staff maintain any records.

5. Limited information is held centrally on cases relating to individuals who work in joint units. The RAF believe that something in the order of 13 such individuals were charged in 2001, six in 2002, and 15 in 2003. For the Army, the respective number of offences charged were 565, 494 and 595. RN data on two major, joint units is available: 33, 37 (approximate) and 24.

2. COURTS MARTIAL

(a) Number of trials or offences—Service personnel

Year Offence Type RN Army RAF

2001 Violence 35 292 24

Absence 1 132 6

Theft/Fraud 33 80 220

Sexual 4 34 3

Drink/Drugs 17 25 9

Military/Other 13 65 11

Total 103 632 273

Total trials 59 — 114

RN total accused 62 — —

2002 Violence 35 215 14

Absence 5 128 8

Theft/Fraud 28 62 15

Sexual 2 24 9

Drink/Drugs 18 28 4

Military/Other 19 49 11

Total 107 506 61

Total trials 53 — 63

RN total accused 57 — —

2003 Violence 36 172 11

Absence 11 114 0

Theft/Fraud 40 61 42

Sexual 5 24 7

Drink/Drugs 8 25 8

Military/Other 48 75 18

Total 145 471 86

Total trials 58 — 76

RN total accused 61 — —

Notes:

1. Services collect data in different ways and there is no agreed classification of offences. The RN and RAF figures relate to the number of offences tried; Army figures relate to the numbers of individuals tried by court martial. An offender may have more than one offence charged against him in a trial. More than one offender may appear at a trial.

2. RAF figures for theft/fraud for 2001 distorted by incidents at one station.

(1) Type of Court—Army and RAF

Year Army GCM Army DCM RAF GCM RAF DCM

2001 77 555 9 105

2002 66 440 5 57

2003 52 419 7 69

Notes:

1. RAF figures for DCM for 2001 distorted by incidents at one station.

2. The numbers for the Army relate to the number of individuals appearing at the particular type of court martial. Joint offenders may appear at one court martial.

(2) Punishments. The details of the punishments imposed by courts martial punishments are attached separately at Annex A.

(3) Elections. Number of trials where accused elected trial by court martial (NB no universal right of election in RN)

Year RN Army RAF

2001 20 — 5 (4 discontinued)

2002 19 — 6 (4 discontinued)

2003 19 — 8 (2 discontinued)

Note: Figures for the Army are not held but it is believed that about 5% of individuals elect.

3. APPEALS AND PETITIONS

(a) Appeals to the SAC. Figures show appeals/successful by variation in whole or in part

Year RN Army RAF

2001 26/7 341/194 26/14

2002 20/5 334/163 26/16

2003 11/4 373/203 37/23

Notes:

1. Some appeals are withdrawn before reaching the SAC.

2. Appeals can be submitted by the Reviewing Authority direct to the SAC.

(b) Petitions to the Reviewing Authority (RA). Court martial trials—number of individuals petitioning the RA/number of petitions granted in whole or in part.

Year RN Army RAF

2001 7/4 108/33 45/3

2002 7/0 101/19 10/0

2003 7/1 81/15 17/0

(c) Appeals to CMAC. Number of appeals to CMAC/number where findings or sentence were quashed or varied.

Year RN Army RAF

2001 1/0 30/7 (4 mitigated; 3 quashed, including one retrial) 33/1

2002 4/1(mitigated) 33/3 (mitigated) Numbers awaiting clarification

2003 2/1 (quashed) 18/1 (mitigated) 3/0

Notes:

1. Individuals can appeal to the House of Lords after appealing to the CMAC under the same conditions as other criminal appeals from the Court of Appeal.

2. RAF figures for 2001 distorted by incidents at one station.

3. RAF does not maintain statistics for appeals. Information provided by Appeal Court staff.

4. REDRESS OF COMPLAINT

(a) Number of cases by type/number where redress granted. Complaints are those dealt with at the second level (above the commanding officer); records are not maintained of complaints resolved at the first level (commanding officer).

Year Type of complaint RN Army RAF Numbers of Complaints
proceeding to
Employment Tribunal

2001 Employment/conditions of service 5/1 67/8 15/6

Performance Report 2/0 71/8 7/3

Pay and Allowances 54/28 77/5 7/0

Other 2/2 59/4 26/11

Total 63/31 274/25 55/20 RN: 11. Army: 104. RAF: 19

2002 Employment/conditions of Service 9/3 42/1 8/1

Performance Report 1/0 57/8 9/5

Pay and Allowances 24/13 27/1 8/2

Other 1/0 55/1 25/6

Total 35/16 181/11 50/14 RN: 7. Army: 39. RAF: 11

2003 Employment/conditions of Service 6/1 32/2 12/3

Performance Report 1/0 31/1 12/3

Pay and Allowances 11/6 38/0 6/4

Other 3/1 44/1 29/6

Total 21/8 145/4 59/16 RN: 3. Army: 27. RAF: 10

Notes:

1. "Other" includes matters such as the award of medals, medical issues, equality, harassment and bullying.

2. RN figures. The large number of pay and allowances complaints for the RN in 2002 was as a result of Pay 2000. Complaints settled or withdrawn before reaching the deciding officer are not included. Some of the ET cases were settled or withdrawn before being heard by the Tribunal.

3. RAF figures. Complaints withdrawn before reaching the deciding officer are included in the totals. Some complaints are still under consideration.

4. Army figures. Some complaints from each year are still under consideration. ET applications for 2001 are high because of three group cases relating to part-time employment, sexual orientation and equal opportunities.

5. Number of complaints proceeding to ET—% of total not included as complaint may proceed to ET at any time within statutory limit and this may be before the complaint is submitted internally to a level above the CO.

(b) Service Boards. Numbers dealt with by Service Boards; time taken for final decision of Board.

Year	Total	Under 6 months	6-12 months	13-24 months	24-36 months


2001	27	6	15	6	0
2002	13	4	6	2	1
2003	8	4	3	1	0

Note: the times are from receipt of the complaint by HQ staff to the decision by the Admiralty Board.

ARMY

Year	Total	Number of cases closed	Average time in weeks

2001	21	20	62
2002	46	46	55
2003	56	10	76

Note: total figures relate to the year in which the case was submitted to the Army Board. Average times are for those cases now closed from receipt of the complaint by the Appeals Wing staff to the decision taken by the Army Board. It includes time where a case has been stayed due to parallel ET applications and this distorts the average.

RAF

Year	Total	Under 6 months	6-12 months	13-24 months

2001	21	9	12	0
2002	20	7	9	4
2003	22	6	9	7

Notes:

1. Timescales relate to the date when the complaint was received within the HQ for staffing to the decision made by the Air Force Board.

2. In addition, there were 234 Pay 2000 cases in 2002 that took on average 16 months to reach a decision by the Air Force Board.

(c) Petitions to HM The Queen. Numbers dealt with by HM The Queen; time taken for final decision.

Year RN Army RAF

2001 1 (under 12 months) 0 1 (under 12 months)

2002 0 4 (outstanding; one
awaiting outcome of ET) 0

2003 0 4 (outstanding) 1 (21 months)

Note: Timescales for Army and RAF relate to the time the complaint was received in the HQ for staffing to the date of the response from HM The Queen. For the RN, the time begins with receipt of the complaint for an initial decision by the Admiralty Board.

5. BOARDS OF INQUIRY

(a) Number of boards convened; how many were as a result of death or serious injury.

Year RN Army RAF

2001 Death/serious injury 5 — 19

Total — 33 (3 convened by CO)

2002 Death/serious injury 6 8

Total — 13 (3 convened by CO)

2003 Death/serious injury 5 — 11 (2 convened by CO)

Total — 16

Notes: RN statistics relate to death only—data on injuries or other matters is not collected. Army: no central records maintained. No records are maintained on lower level inquiries.

6. OTHER ACTION

A note on administrative action is attached at Annex B.

7. HUMAN RIGHTS

A note on past cases and forthcoming judgements is attached at Annex C.

Annexes:

A. Court Martial Punishments—2001-03.

B. Administrative Action.

C. Human Rights.

Annex A

COURT MARTIAL PUNISHMENTS—2001-03

Punishments	2001	2002	2003
Imprisonment/custodial order	2	1	1
Military detention	20 (and 10 also dismissed; 6 sentences suspended, 4x stoppages)	27 (and 8 also dismissed; 10 sentences suspended, 1x fine, 2x stoppages)	31 (and 9 also dismissed; 12 sentences suspended, 7x stoppages)
Dismissal with disgrace	0	0
Dismissal	4 (and 1x disrating)	2	6 (and 1x disrating, 2x stoppages)
Fine	12 (and 2x severe reps, 1x rep)	8 (and 2x severe reps, 2x stoppages)	6 (and 1x reprimand)
Severe reprimand	3	1	2
Reprimand	2	5	1
Forfeiture of seniority	4 (and 3x severe reps, 2x fines,1x dismissed ship)	1 (and fine with severe rep)	3 (and 3x severe reps)
Dismissed ship	—	—	2
Disrating	1	2	1
Deprivation of Good Conduct Badges	—	1	—

Note: In addition to the single punishment for 2002 of deprivation of Good Conduct Badges, a number of other offenders were also deprived of their good conduct badges and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals.

Army

Punishment	2001	2002	2003

Imprisonment/custodial orders	25	26	19
Military detention	229	186	171
Dismissal with disgrace	4	5	0
Dismissal	96	116	84
Fine	87	83	85
Severe reprimand/reprimand	6	1	7
Reduction in rank	30	21	29
Other	12	8	6

Notes:

1. Numbers relate to individual punishments. Where an individual receives two distinct punishments, both punishments are included where the second punishment is serious.

2. "Other" includes forfeiture of seniority, admonishment and minor punishments.

Army

Punishment imposed	2001	2002	2003

Imprisonment/custodial orders	1	0	1
Military Detention	31	18	16
Dismissal with disgrace	0	1	2
Dismissal	7	10	4
Fine	49	13	22
Stoppages	36	3	4
Severe Reprimand	19	2	3
Reprimand	3	0	0
Reduction in rank	12	4	5

Annex B

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Are there other informal systems [ie in addition to summary dealing and courts martial] in any of the Services for dealing with discipline (ie warnings) and what are they? If relevant, the number of cases dealt with informally in this way.

1. There are no informal systems in any of the Services for dealing with alleged offences committed within the Armed Forces jurisdiction by servicemen.

2. As a responsible employer however, each of the Services operates a formal system of administrative action. This is not used as an alternative to disciplinary action but is to deal with cases, by way of formal established procedures, where personnel have displayed professional shortcomings or have failed to act in accordance with the rules (values) and standards expected of them. Administrative action is used to correct these professional and employment failings and safeguard operational effectiveness.

3. Administrative action by the Services may include the imposition of sanctions as a result of social misconduct[28]and following the reporting of a civil conviction (including driving under the influence of alcohol). This is in addition to administrative action which is regarded as non-blameworthy (ie unsuitable for flying training) and the type of behaviour which although, unrelated to indiscipline, impacts upon professional standing (eg alcohol abuse, indebtedness, inefficiency). The sanctions available range from warnings to discharge and resignation.

4. Although each Service's system varies in terminology and procedure, the general principles are the same. RN Personnel, Legal, Administrative General Orders 0202-0204 deal with administrative censures for Officers and 0302 for ratings and PLAGO 0101 with social misconduct; Army General and Administrative Instruction(AGAI) Number 67 covers both Officers and soldiers and the RAF are governed by Air Publication 3392 Vol 5 and 4 for Officers and airmen respectively.

5. Additionally, from 1 January 2005, the Army intend to introduce a new system whereby AGAI 67 is to be used to deal with minor shortcomings unless there is a specific reason why a serviceman should merit disciplinary action. Minor failings (eg poor turnout, bad soldiering, performing duties below the expected standard and absence for periods up to 48 hours) will be identified and the appropriate commander (from LCpl upwards) will determine whether the service test has been broken. If the behaviour fails the service test, a proportionate sanction or oral warning is applied. The sanctions include show parades, extra duties, regimental work, recorded oral warning. A system of reviewing the award will be instituted to accompany the greater use of administrative action.

6. The above procedures do not affect the normal practice whereby a rating, soldier or airman may be warned to make improvements over a three month period to his or her performance before any formal action is taken. This measure is considered restorative and remedial and not punitive.

7. STATISTICS

These statistics cover the total number of administrative awards given for Officers for action following civil convictions, driving under the influence of alcohol, negligence/misconduct and social misconduct. The awards range from censures to resignation.

Officers

2001 2002 2003

RN 7 5 13

Army 34 42 31

RAF 26 22 18

Total 67 69 62

Other ranks

There are no recorded cases of Warrant Officers receiving administrative censures and the following number of service penalties were awarded for ratings following civil convictions:

2001—135

2002—114

2003—152

Army

Units and commands are only required to report sanctions for Officers up the chain of command. Although soldiers will have the sanction recorded on their Conduct Sheet, there is no means by which an Army wide search can be carried out. That said in the year 2003-04 approximately 75 officers and soldiers were reported for social misconduct and, 375 officers and soldiers convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol.

RAF

These figures include all types of administrative action taken other than formal warnings.

2001—66

2002—51

2003—72

Annex C

HUMAN RIGHTS

What legal judgements have led to changes to the SDAs, in particular ECHR and HL judgements?

Are there any other cases pending and, in broad terms, what do they relate to?

No domestic cases have led to changes to the SDAs.

The following ECtHR cases have led to changes to the SDAs:

Findlay v UK