A document
leaked in November 2012 said every one of 400 female soldiers questioned during
an Army investigation said they had received "unwanted sexual
attention" during their career.[1]
In the Services, serious sexual offences listed in Schedule 2 to the Armed
Forces Act 2006 (AFA 2006) which are reported to the police are referred by
them to the Director of Service Prosecutions.
However, substantive sexual assault may still be dealt with by a CO or
disguised and mis-dealt with as drunkenness or prejudicial conduct. This, in
turn, causes difficulty in identifying the
true scale of the problem.
The
independent Office of the Service
Complaints Commissioner (SCC) was set up under the provisions of the AFA 2006
and is accountable to Parliament. It is
tasked to deal with complaints brought by members of the services in relation to any matter to do with their
service in the Armed Forces. The Commissioner acts as an alternative point of contact for
them to raise concerns if, for whatever reason, they do not wish to make a
complaint directly to their Commanding Officer (CO). This is separate from
formal disciplinary action. Any complaint by a service person must be lodged
within 3 months of the time it arose. The SCC monitors how their complaint is handled and ensures that they
are treated properly. She holds the Services to account for fairness,
effectiveness and efficiency in their operation of the complaints system. However,
at present, the SCC has no legal powers in relation to individual complaints.
In her
frank report of 2012,[2]
the SCC found it unacceptable
that, for the fifth consecutive year she was still unable to say that the
Service complaints system was working efficiently, effectively or fairly. In August 2012 her recommendation to ministers that there should
be an Armed Forces Ombudsman was rejected. Last year, however, her
recommendations to the House of Commons Defence Committee[3]
- that she should be provided with powers to question the Services on the
investigation of specific cases, make recommendations for further action and
hold them to account through a Service response guaranteed by ultimate referral
to ministers - were accepted. MPs also
found that there were "continuing problems" with other types of
harassment, "bullying, improper behaviour and victimisation" in the
armed services. Committee chairman and
Conservative MP James Arbuthnot said:
"There are too many reports of service personnel being reluctant to
raise genuine complaints and grievances.”[4]
On the 13th
March of this year,[5]
the Defence Secretary announced that the Service Complaints system will be
reformed and the SCC given new powers as
the Service Complaints Ombudsman underpinned by legislation which will make it possible for
a complainant, after one level of appeal, to ask the Ombudsman to review the
handling of their complaint if they are not satisfied that it has been dealt
with correctly. These
changes will ensure that the Services and the chain of command, up to and
including the highest levels, are held to account. However, the Ombudsman’s recommendations will
not be legally binding but the Service will need to give good reasons for not
following them.
The
perception that the Services, in dealing in-house with complaints, do not deal
fairly is a difficult one to shake. The perception is that the Services care
more about protecting the interests of the Service rather than delivering
justice and redress to the complainant.[6]
As someone who has advised the Army Board and sat with them during oral
hearings and then their deliberations, I can say that I have never found the
members to be anything other than scrupulously fair. But, as we saw with the European
Court of Human Rights’ assessment of the court martial system, perceptions are
everything.
The biggest
problem, it is suggested, is to provide a system in which a victim feels
confident that his/her complaint will be dealt with properly. That will
persuade victims to come forward to complain. One hopes that the new Ombudsman,
with statutory powers to act, will assure Service personnel, and the Services
themselves, that individuals are being treated properly and will enable
corrective action to be taken where necessary. Let us hope also that there will
be no more cases like Anne-Marie’s.
[6] There is “nothing to prevent dishonest
commanders from pursuing vendettas against those over whom they exercise
power": http://www.channel4.com/news/army-discipline-often-equivalent-to-kangaroo-courts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).