3 Likes
It’s used when there are no other statutory offences and / or when the court would otherwise be inappropriately constrained by sentencing guidelines. It has to be pretty darn serious.
It would be very easy to argue we are public officers … so it’s the misconduct that we need to ‘worry’ about. I say ‘worry’ as, with any crime, you only really need worry if you did it …
Or did nothing (i.e. you allowed it to happen without stopping or reporting it).
1 Like
Can also work the other way - ACP1 can be interpreted in a quite strict way regarding, for example, a criminal conviction which might be relatively minor in some ways, but I’ve recently seen a colleague summarily dismissed for “falling short of the high standards” etc.
That’s RAFAC policy, so fair enough. With the wording of ACP 1 and the volunteer agreement, any of us could probably be dismissed if someone tried hard enough. All those times and haven’t called Wing staff ‘sir’? Definitely falling short of someone’s standards.
It just always surprises me when HQAC use a criminal offence to try to influence volunteers. It’s irrelevant to 99.9% of CFAV but comes across as draconian and even threatening. We’re volunteers in a youth organisation, not significant public figures.
It’s almost as if they don’t understand the difference between a volunteer youth leader and a pilot with the delegated authority to drop missiles on what could be a school or could be a terrorist training camp.
7 Likes
Exactly - had interesting discussion with my WEXO about the new Commandant’s outlook, generational/culture change… and my view on whether the disciplinary process is an appropriate vehicle for that change! My dismissed colleague did think they’d have got more hearing at a court martial - need to make sure we have the best of being both uniformed+volunteer, not the worst of both!
1 Like
“Paid” when it suits them, “Volunteer allowance” when it doesn’t.
6 Likes
Don’t need to be paid. Case law and CPS make it clear that volunteers can be included.
1 Like
I think I’d fight the definition applying to us, I think our role is sufficiently separate from an actual member of the armed forces that it’s by no means a slam dunk prosecution, it’s certainly not an offence I’d be very keen to prosecute a CFAV under either. It would probably be easier to use literally any other criminal offence and look at the substantive acts.
Also, I cannot really see what we could do, considering we have no real powers to exercise, that could be misconduct while exercising them?
1 Like
The argument would be easier for a wing commander, than it would be for newly appointed Sgt Smith, the junior member of a squadron staff team. But still not clear cut
As Baldrick says there will nearly always be something else you could charge them with instead. I’m not convinced that a sexual relationship between staff and a 16/17 year old cadet would fall under misconduct even if the public office part was met. Even if you have a 50 year Wing Commander sleeping with a 17 year old cadet sergeant and then “rewarding” her by making her the number one nomination from the wing for every activity going I’m not convinced that’s misconduct of a kind envisioned by the act (assuming it’s consensual and no illegal coersion is taking place).
2 Likes
Just as an aside Police Special Constables who are unpaid volunteers are often charged with misconduct in public office when involved in wrong doing.
It’s the office held that is relevant not the employment status.
As Cadet Forces Officers receive a Queens Commission in HM cadet Forces then it would be taken that they hold an office under the crown as if they misuse the authority and/or privileges granted with that office (including abuse of trust) then it’s misconduct in public office.
It’s not HQAC saying that volunteers will be convicted, just that it’s a possibility. CPS would be the decision makers and they would tack on the offence or take it off as they see fit.
At the end of the day if it helps deter some of the wrong-uns from trying to misuse their authority then that’s all to the good - ifs it getting to the stage of court then it’s already escalated to high level & out of HQACs hands.
What I do think should happen is results of any disciplinaries are published in redacted form almost as an aid to learning as well a promoting transparency around matters rather than people “disappearing”.
For example
“A WO was required to resign from the organisation following a criminal conviction for a driving offence”
“A complaint was made against a pilot officer regarding inappropriate & foul language used toward & in front of cadets. the Regional Commandant found the complaint proven on balance of probabilities and the officer was given an informal action”
If something like this published it would certainly reaffirm that there is a standard & it will be upheld as well reducing the pre-conception that if there is a complaint “nothing would get done about it”.
5 Likes
This. Maybe it’s because I’m in a profession that names and shames but I would go further and say that in many cases people should be named as well in these reports.
However, if we’re going to do open justice we might need to sort the disciplinary system out. I’ve not been involved myself (yet) but (incoming hearsay) knowing people who have been cleared through the system they said it’s not a pleasant experience and certainly not fair.
1 Like
The problem is that in most cases there would be young people involved and due to the nature of our organisation it would be relatively easy to start identifying “victims” even with minimal information.
Being a Special Constable isn’t really the equivalent to what we do, they are after all warranted constables. I would say this is especially true since we switched to the Cadet Forces Commissions, we are more like the member of Civvy Staff who runs the Police Cadets.
4 Likes
The problem IMO is that it loses the context which could cause confusion/misinformation.
For example, “A CFAV was dismissed for an inappropriate relationship with a cadet” conveys a different message to “A newly appointed 20yo CI was dismissed for refusing to end his long-term relationship with his 19 yo girlfriend” (which would probably reveal too much identifying data).
2 Likes
That’s not the test. It’s not even defined by any Act, it’s a common law offence, hence the maximum penalty being Life Imprisonment.* The Courts have been very loath to give a clear definition, for policy reasons, and I find it surprising that without a direct case in example, our own headshed have come to the conclusion that we are in a public office, when the CoA have been very keen to stress that the role should be narrowly confined.
To me, it’s not something worth worrying about specifically. You’ll break other laws on the way to misconduct, and it would be a waste of public money to prosecute MIAPO, when there is literally any other crime to prosecute, as it’s a guaranteed appeal point before you start.
*max of life for many of the common law offences is in my experience a technical possibility, rather than a likely outcome. For instance, this year a judge gave the first ever life sentence for perverting the course of justice, and it was overturned on appeal: Barrister who framed her lover for kidnap and rape after learning he was married has life sentence overturned (thesun.co.uk)
1 Like
As was pointed out about, if Eke wasn’t charged with it then the odds of anyone ever being charged with it are zero.
They got him for fraud, easy prosecution.
That’s the art of a good prosecution, keep it simple.
1 Like
I thought the CPS motto was “don’t even bother” 
3 Likes