As attention is focussed on misogyny in the Police the mouseinthecourt examines how the military deals with cases in the world of the Court Martial.
In September last year this correspondent observed and reported on the case of Mr Tevita Logavatu, then aged 21, formally of the Royal Artillery Barracks in Salisbury.
Mr Logavatu was appealing his sentence at the Court of Appeal for the attempted rape and sexual assault of two women, committed on an army base. After hearing submissions Lord Justice Haddon-Cave ruled that the court had “no doubt” that “10 years is fully justified in this case” and his appeal was dismissed.
Mr Logavatu had been convicted at a Court Martial hearing in August 2020 and a Google search reveals that the mouseinthecourt is the only website to have reported on his case.
According to the Judiciary.UK website the Court Martial has global jurisdiction over all service personnel and civilians subject to service discipline (e.g. family members, civilian contractors, teachers, administrative staff when serving abroad) and hears all types of criminal cases including murder and serious sexual offences.
The jury, known as the board, comprises between three and seven commissioned officers or Warrant Officers depending on the seriousness of the case. An important distinction to the Crown Court is that the Jury assists the Judge with decisions on sentencing, which can include life imprisonment. A second distinction is that the jury is not formed of independent members of the public.
A discussion on the law surrounding “The features of the Court Martial System” is discussed from para 11 in R v Blackman.
Court Martial hearings are heard in public and are listed online, although most cases heard at the two permanent Military Court Centres – Catterick and Bulford, receive no coverage in the press or elsewhere.
This lack of scrutiny has a particular resonance given the high standing military personnel have in our society (quite rightly) and the responsibilities and standards they are expected to uphold.
The case of DCI James Mason, a serving police officer who had been found guilty of gross misconduct following allegation of sexual misconduct, has gained widespread coverage in the press recently (having first been exclusively covered by the mouseinthecourt). It is quite right that society is looking very closely about the role of misogynistic behaviour in the Police – but what about the military where transparency is sorely lacking?
Well, the MOD does publish results from their court centres, albeit with between a 14 and 25-month-delay and devoid of any personally identifiable material. A FOI request made by this blog to the MOD reveals “that the 2020 court martial results are planned to be published by February 2022”.
There is strong public interest in this data – analysis on the results from 2019 show a bewildering number of convictions including a Lance Corporal who received 3 years for Manslaughter; a Sergeant based at RAF Waddington who was dismissed and received a non-custodial sentence for two counts of ‘Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence’; and a Rifleman detained for 10 months for revenge porn. The longest sentence passed was 14 years for two counts of rape.
Worryingly, a Lance Corporal serving with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards was allowed to keep their job after being found guilty of Sexual Assault. On 20th November 2019 we’re told they received a sentence of 80-days-detention and reduced to the rank of Trooper. It is notable that DCI James Mason also kept his job and the MET police are facing a judicial review into that decision.
In a ‘Sexual offences in the Service Justice System’ report dated March 2021 the Ministry of Defence reveal that:
“during 2020 the Service Police initiated a total of 161 investigations into sexual offences” of these “100 led to charges being referred to the [Director of Service Prosecutions] by the Service Police, 29 investigations did not lead to a referral and 33 were still under investigation at the end of 2020.”
We’re told that “146 investigations into [Sexual Offences Act] offences involved 150 suspects (140 male, 4 female and 6 unidentified suspects) and 180 victims (36 male, 137 female and 7 unknown or unspecified)” Of those 180 victims only 22 were recorded as non-service personnel.
The Court Martial “tried 51 defendants in 2020 who faced 81 charges. Of these charges, 50 were found guilty, 30 were found not guilty and 1 charge was discontinued at Court Martial. 30 defendants were found guilty of a sexual offence.” It is noted that “several defendants were convicted of multiple sexual offence charges.”
We’ll see what other offences the Court Martial heard in 2020 when the data is released, we’re assured, sometime later this month.
Mouse in the Court 