Examination of Witnesses (Questions 509-519)
MR ROBERT
ROOKS, BRIGADIER
COLIN FINDLAY,
GROUP CAPTAIN
EDWARD SCAPLEHORN
AND COMMANDER
DAVID PRICE
1 MARCH 2006
Q509 Chairman: Good morning.
First of all, thank you for sparing the time to come and talk
to us about these important matters impinging on this Bill which
you are in one way or another involved in. If you wanted to say
any brief words of introduction this is the opportunity to do
so otherwise we will plunge straight into questions.
Mr Rooks: I think
we are ready to plunge straight into questions, Chairman.
Q510 Mr Howarth: Can you
tell us whether you think there is likely to be an increase in
the number of incidents that you are going to have to investigate
as a result of this Bill? If so, have you assessed the likely
impact on your resources? Do you think you have got enough men
and kit to do the job?
Mr Rooks: It is not immediately
apparent that the Bill itself will cause an increase in workload
for the Service Police although there are other factors which
might in future. One aspect of the Bill which could cause an increase
is the fact that Service Police will now be empowered to investigate
anything which is reported to them or comes to their attention
from any source rather than having to be asked by the Commanding
Officer. I think that that should not necessarily lead to an increase
in workload because there really is no evidence at the moment
that any incident that needs to be reported and investigated is
not so reported and investigated. So what may happen is that the
Service Police find out about an incident perhaps a little bit
quicker, but even then I doubt it because in practice most incidents
are relatively minor. They might occur at night in the barracks
after two servicemen have been to the pub and they are having
a fight. The first people that would be called would almost certainly
be the Service Police. I doubt that people would call the Commanding
Officer at two o'clock in the morning. Therefore, the Service
Police would respond and they would start by breaking up the fight
and they would, at the very least, ask what it was about. They
would have already begun an investigation. No doubt they would
have reported that to the Commanding Officer very quickly and
that investigation would be formally authorised. In practice I
see no reason why there should be any more cases than there are
now.
Brigadier Findlay: In terms of
the Bill, I do not perceive any increase in workload. Where the
additional workload comes from and where the pressure comes on
to the Army element of the Service Police at the moment with RAF
support is in operational theatres and it is our ability to cope
with that spike of investigative activity that comes particularly
from investigations in Afghanistan and in Iraq that poses us with
a challenge. I am quite convinced at the moment that I do need
more manpower, but you would expect me perhaps to say that and
that is being studied in depth at the moment.
Q511 Mr Howarth: What
is your manpower at the present time?
Brigadier Findlay: I have 234
detective specialists in the SIB and that manpower covers investigations
in any location around the world where there are UK Army forces
based.
Q512 Mr Howarth: Could
the other two possibly give us the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy
figures?
Group Captain Scaplehorn: The
Royal Air Force has 35 detective specialists.
Commander Price: In the Navy there
are 11 in the SIB. Overall the size of the Service Police is approximately
280 altogether.
Q513 Mr Howarth: Do you
concur with the Brigadier that despite the level of potential
enquiries that this Bill might raise you can cope?
Commander Price: From an RN perspective,
I believe that we are insufficiently resourced in certain areas.
That said, there is currently a review within the Navy looking
at how we deal with the independence of investigations and how
we are going to meet the requirements of the Bill itself and at
the organisation and the setup. This review presents the opportunity
to reorganise and to put the appropriate level of resources in
place.
Group Captain Scaplehorn: I concur
with that. We have certainly felt the strain in the Special Investigations
Branch. We are currently reviewing the composition of that and
we are putting resource into that from other areas of the RAF
Police. It is simply an adjustment of resource.
Q514 Mr Howarth: So you
do not think that the requirement now for a Commanding Officer
to refer to you any case which is outside his summary powers is
going to lead to an increase in workload?
Brigadier Findlay: I do not believe
so. Commanding Officers very frequently invite the Service Police
to conduct enquiries which they will deal with summarily even
at present. In terms of providing best evidence, particularly
when something is likely to be dealt with on a criminal basis
at summary dealing level, it is wise for them to be utilising
Service Police skills to acquire that evidence appropriately at
the moment. I do not perceive that that is going to result in
an expansion of requirement on the ground where the volume of
activity takes place.
Q515 Mr Jones: I heard
what you said about resources, which I think is pretty self-evident
from recent events. Would you agree with Judge Blackett who said
in last week's Sunday Telegraph that it was unacceptable
and damaging that inefficiencies within the military meant that
soldiers charged with serious crimes sometimes had to wait months
or years before appearing at a court martial? Are you accepting
there are inefficiencies in the way in which this system is carried
out?
Mr Rooks: Most of the cases which
are receiving criticism now are quite old. They are ones which
occurred after the cessation of hostilities in Iraq when the situation
was extremely dangerous. I do not think any of us would deny that
the SIB was under-resourced for what was happening at that
time. What we have done since is train a number of additional
so-called Level 3 investigators who deal with serious offences
and SIOs who supervise them. We have also increased the actual
equipment and support which deployed SIB people in Iraq have.
They were rather short of the basic things like vehicles, computers
and so forth. That has been rectified and therefore matters are
now better. I think I should say that those extra people were
taken from the bulk of the police force, so they were not extra
to the RMP but at least they were extra people for investigations.
Q516 Chairman: If we are
talking about inefficiencies, presumably they were failures in
not having the right computer equipment, the right vehicles in
place and not human inefficiencies.
Brigadier Findlay: I think what
the judge is reflecting is the overall challenge we face on the
delay of the production of casework. Perhaps I might just try
and explain some of the challenges which we face in the Service
Police which are not characteristic in a civil police investigation;
this is the tremendous mobility of the armed force structure where
it exists. The incident might have taken place in Germany. The
troops may then take part in exercises in Canada, at the British
Army unit or they may go on leave to the United Kingdom. We have
a very, very mobile population. The two major reasons for delay
in investigations relate to either forensic submissions—and
that is something that is characterised in the civil community
as well—or indeed the availability of military witnesses.
That is where the inefficiency comes about because of the very
mobile nature of the military population. That is not quite the
same challenge as you have with a far more static civilian population
in any county police force's operational area. We have done a
great deal in the last six months to rationalise electronically
the management of our case files through something called the
Electronic Case File Register which I can look at from my office
individually in Upavon in Wiltshire and then apply appropriate
command and control pressure to speed up the production of witnesses
to cases and allow that to progress. Within the last three months
we have reduced case file delay by 30%. That is an improvement
responding to the judge's comments in the newspaper at the weekend.
Q517 Mr Jones: Most police
forces that I know of now are very strict on a clear case management
system whereby if things are not done by certain dates they are
reviewed.
Brigadier Findlay: As I do in
exactly the same way.
Q518 Mr Jones: Have you
got a similar system?
Brigadier Findlay: Yes, I do and
I can review that on a weekly basis.
Q519 Mr Jones: The judge
goes on in this article to say that delays undermine the effectiveness
of the court martial system. Would you agree that any delay leads
not only to pressure on those individuals accused but also in
terms of the credibility of the court martial system?
Brigadier Findlay: Indeed, because
justice delayed is justice denied in that respect. The management
of delay in all aspects of a military criminal justice system—and
we have just been talking about the military police portion of
that—is the Adjutant-General's highest priority.
I am held accountable on a monthly basis to him for that case-by-case.
| 
