CALLS have been made to have civilian police forces investigate misconduct within the army after one of the largest inquiries into the alleged abuse of teenage Army recruits in Britain collapsed.
Sixteen instructors had been accused of ill-treating 28 school leavers during a training exercise in Scotland, but all have walked free from court martials after the cases against them were abandoned.
A judge branded the three-year military police probe “seriously flawed” amid problems of missing evidence and claims that witnesses were forced to make statements.
The recruits told the court martial in Bulford, Wiltshire, that the instructors would get them fired up by making them play British Bulldog, by
putting on “war faces” and getting them running between two hills - known as “heaven” and “hell” - ahead of bayonet training during a battle camp at Kirkcudbright, Dumfries and Galloway, in the summer of 2014.
It was then claimed that the teenagers, who were aged 16 or 17, were slapped or punched in the face, spat at, grabbed by the throat, were “clotheslined”, had their faces submerged in mud or were ordered to eat animal manure.
But after eight days, the prosecution offered no evidence in 24 of the 31 charges the first 10 defendants faced - meaning five were acquitted and walked free from court.
The trial of the remaining five instructors continued for another day until Assistant Judge Advocate General Alan Large stayed proceedings, ruling they could not get a fair trial.
Following his ruling - in which he condemned the Royal Military Police (RMP)for a “totally blinkered approach” to the investigation - the prosecution indicated it would offer no evidence against a further six instructors.
said the case should have been investigated by the civilian police and tried in civilian courts.
The Peace Pledge Union, a UK pacifist network, said the armed forces should not be allowed to police themselves and to try alleged abusers in their own courts.
Symon Hill, the group co-ordinator, said: “This is outrageous. The Royal Military Police say they were delayed because of ‘more urgent enquiries’. It is sickening to think that they do not regard investigating the alleged abuse of 16-year-olds as a priority.”
It emerged that the officer leading the investigation, Captain Teresa Spanton, did not question eyewitnesses - including a major, several captains and a warrant officer - because she believed they would lie in their witness statements, a decision described by the judge as “frankly, startling”.
Handwritten accounts made by some recruits shortly after the alleged abuse have never been found and neither have up to 500 photographs of the training taken by an officer.
It also took two years to interview the accused soldiers and another 12 months before they knew they were being charged.
Emma Norton, from human rights campaign group Liberty, said: “The collapse of this trial - and the catalogue of serious Royal Military Police failures that caused it - must be a wake-up call for the Ministry of Defence.
“The men and women who serve in our armed forces deserve better than this shoddy second-rate justice system.
“When someone commits a crime on British soil - whether soldier or civilian - that crime should be investigated by civilian police.
“As this scathing ruling shows, military police do not have the resources, expertise or impartiality to conduct proper, fair investigations - and, when they fail, soldiers and their families have no independent oversight body to turn to for help.”
An Army spokeswoman said: “Despite the outcome, we will consider carefully whether any internal disciplinary action is necessary.
“Given this ruling, the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Royal Military Police will be conducting a review to ensure that lessons are learned.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel