Just reading through the safeguarding newsletter and one sentence jumped out. ‘Commissioned members of RAFAC are also considered to be in public office’. The newsletter then implies that criminal prosecution for misconduct in public office might be a consequence of misconduct.
For our legal members, is this complete scaremongering or is there any truth in it? I can’t see why we’re in public office or why it would just be commissioned officers.
AFAIK there is no strict definition of a ‘public officer’ WRT misconduct in a public office. Therefore it’d be up to the courts to decide if you would be classed as in public officer or not. I’ve looked into this before and a lot of the case law that is referenced often mentions a person being paid. Not that it is part of the law though.
I suppose uniformed CFAVs are paid, so could meet that test. I found the CPS guidance after I posted and it’s certainly not clear.
There are cases of volunteers being considered public officers, so the paid bit is certainly not needed all the time, I should have added.
I should add I’m not worried about imminent prosecution! A poorly defined offence with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment is quite something to mention in passing in a newsletter though, so made me think.
Just be more careful managing the petty cash 
I think it would be likely that an OC wing for example would be more likely to meet the definition compared to a squadron officer. As opposed to a blanket ‘all CFAV’ or ‘all officers’. Just my thoughts anyway!
The commissioned part screams out as a legacy of the VR(T) days
I’m going back about a decade but one Sqn Cdr conference I attended for the OC at the time at a chat from the then head of safeguarding.
The chap from HQAC spoke about some case studies & incidents of ACO personal who had been convicted of abuse and in the case of the example of the officer who was highlighted mentioned that they pushed for misconduct in public office.
This was the old VRT days when air cadet officers were under service regs & benefited from a number of service excemptions under the armed forces act legislation so I can well believe that the misconduct in public office was something that was pushed.
Whether that would still apply under cadet forces permission I don’t know & suspect it would be something to be tested in court.
At least that would limit the scope to misuse of an AEF aircraft nowadays
Was this pushed for because the other offence that our safeguarding folks often go on about (abuse of a position of trust) doesn’t actually apply to volunteers?
Flashback to Michael Eke… What did he get done for???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/6196884.stm
The safeguarding newsletter mentions this as well and basically says, we know this is a legally defined term, but we’re using it in a different context in our policy but with a similar effect. It’s a bit confusing, but I see the valid point that they’re trying to make.
I’ve got an idea the kinda went for throw everything and see what the could get - I’ve got an idea that the individual concerned was a school teacher with a CCF but the incident occurred on a summer camp albeit involving a cadet who was a pupil at the same school.
They might have gone done the misconduct in public office route if the offender was claiming that he wasn’t in a regulated position of trust as he was an RAF officer on an air cadet summer camp so probably some legal gymnastics to get something to stick & avoid he wriggling out of it.
In doesn’t apply per-se but can and will act as a culpability ( aggravating?) factor in sentencing if other crimes have been committed.
No no, HQAC take great pains to make clear we are not paid… we are ‘remunerated’
Yeah if there are other offences then it’s going to push up the culpability and affect the sentencing, but if the other party is 16 or over than it’s going to hit the wall of no offences. (Despite for many years on things like Basic Courses and even at ATF the organisation claiming otherwise).
At least they are now acknowledging the different Le between the law and the rules of the organisation, although I don’t agree with them still fudging the issue by using a legally defined term outside of its legal context.
Personally I think it’s an area of legislation that needs amending, their are many gaps where people are in positions of power over young adults which aren’t covered and should be. (That being said I think the whole age of consent needs to be overhauled and modernised anyway and have said that for many years).
Reminds me of the additional personal liability that company directors face, above that of ordinary employees and managers. That’s why legal types strongly advise folk to do their research before accepting promotion at work to board of directors. I’d imagine the same is true in the RAFAC. Squadron commanders are probably more like senior(ish) managers in a company. Accepting promotion as wing commander could lead to all-you-can-eat porridge at HMP Belmarsh if cadet Bloggs dies.
Doesn’t the DDH actually hold the risk however? It’s just delegated down to Wing Commanders and SME’s.
From my H&S training,I understand that you can delegate responsibility, but retain accountability - in our case the Duty holder will be person accountable , whereas the volunteers across the rank rank could only be prosecuted if they deviated from the regs, or their actions somehow contributed to an accident.
CPS website has some detailed reading material for those interested.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office
I’m certainly not legally trained, but from a quick read of the relevant sections of the website, I think it could go either way in relation to a CFAV, but might depend on the nature of the offence.