Army Act Sections - WWII - Canadian Army

Hi: I am working on transcribing a service record of a gentleman in the RCASC in Italy and he got himself in a bit of trouble. He was tried by the FGCM and found guilty. He was charged under the Army Act for
- Section 8(2)
- Section 11
- Section 24 (2)
- Section 40
I would like to find exactly what these charges were for. I can find a summary of the sections online but not the specific wording of the sub-sections. For example, Section 8 can be Striking a Superior Officer or Threatening a Superior Office or Insubordination. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks

 

Welcome to the forum.

You might find this 1941 publication useful, if you have not already found it:
http://www.lareau-legal.ca/Singer.pdf

I've got an edition of the Manual of Military Law published in 1914 ( price 2/- or 10 pence ) and another in 1943 ( price 3/6d or 17 1/2 pence ) which has amendments pasted in, but I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statements of law under the sections cited for the whole of WWII.

Being "on active service" is an important definition: it ceased to apply to the armed forces in the United Kingdom on 18th June 1945.

The Army Act [ 44 & 45 Vict. c. 58.] " has of itself no force, but requires to be brought into operation annually by another Act of Parliament, ( now called " the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act" ), thus securing the constitutional principle of the control of Parliament over the discipline without which a standing army and air force cannot be maintained. These annual Acts afford opportunities of amending the Army Act, of which considerable use is made." ( from 1943 edition ).

As a matter of interest the sections mentioned are almost identical in both editions, the 1914 version is better printed on finer paper with fewer commas. Section 24 had an additional sentence after sub-section (5) not seen in the 1943 version, being: " For the purposes of this section, the expression "equipments" includes any article issued to a soldier for his use, or entrusted to his care for military purposes."

Each edition includes notes after the sections not found in the Act but for the guidance of users.

An important note in the 1943 edition refers to Section 40 which was considered in the case of Heddon v Evans (1919) 35 Times Law Reports 642.

The note says:

" If it is reasonably clear that a man - if guilty of anything - is guilty of one of the more serious offences mentioned in previous sections, a C.O. should not arrogate jurisdiction to himself by preferring a charge under this section: on the other hand, if there is real doubt whether one of the more serious offences has been committed, and the C.O. considers that the circumstances justly permit a less serious charge under this section being preferred, he may properly take the latter course.."

If your gentleman was charged for offences arising out of one event or series of events then it looks like a charge under section 40 was made to enable the more serious charges to be dropped.

The text of the Army Act from my 1943 edition states as follows for the sections you mentioned.



8. (1) Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

Strikes or uses or offers any violence to his superior officer, being in the execution of his office,

shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer penal servitude or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and

(2) Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

Strikes or uses or offers any violence to his superior officer or uses threatening or insubordinate language to his superior officer,

shall, on conviction by court-martial, if he commits such offence on active service, be liable to suffer penal servitude, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned; and

if he commits such offence not on active service, be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered, or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.



11. Every person subject to military law who commits the following offence; that is to say,

neglects to obey any general or garrison or other orders,

shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered, or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.

Provided that the expression "general orders" in this section shall not include His Majesty's regulations and orders for the army or any similar order in the nature of a regulation published for the general information and guidance of the army.



24. Every soldier who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

(1) Makes away with, or is concerned in making away with (whether by pawning, selling, destruction, or otherwise howsoever), his arms, ammunition, equipments, instruments, clothing, regimental necessaries, or any horse of which he has charge, or any public property issued to him for his use or entrusted to his care for military purposes; or

(2) Loses by neglect anything before in this section mentioned; or

(3) Makes away with (whether by pawning, selling, destruction, or otherwise howsoever) any military or air force decoration granted to him; or

(4) Wilfully injures anything before in this section mentioned, or any property belonging to a comrade, or to an officer, or to any regimental mess or band, or to any regimental institution, or any public property; or

(5) Ill-treats any horse or other animal used in the public service,

shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment, or such less imprisonment as is in this Act mentioned.



40. Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,

Is guilty of any act, conduct, disorder, or neglect to the prejudice of good order and military discipline,

shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable, if an officer, to be cashiered, or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned. Provided that no person shall be charged under this section in respect of any offence for which special provision is made in any other part of this Act, and which is not a civil offence; nevertheless the conviction of a person so charged shall not be invalid by reason only of the charge being in contravention of this proviso, unless it appears that injustice has been done to the person charged by reason of such contravention; but the responsibility of any officer for that contravention shall not be removed by the validity of the conviction.

 

Thank you sooooo much. That was exactly what I was looking for!

 

Thanks. " A finding of guilty and the sentence consequent thereon are not valid until confirmed by superior authority. Until promulgation the accused will be in ignorance of the sentence awarded;...." ( Manual of Military Law, 1943, page 62.)

Confirmation and promulgation can take months, and may never occur.

" The warrant issued to an officer commanding abroad usually gives authority to confirm the findings and sentences of general courts-martial, and to delegate that power."

Records of Field General Court Martials are in books in WO213 in the UK National Archives but I've not seen an example. I believe they just have brief details.

 

Thanks for the link. "Heddon v Evans" as a search term links to more recent legal texts, so it is a leading case.

Punishment policy and details about Section 40 follow:
“ One sentence only must be awarded in respect of all the offences of which an accused person has been found guilty, even if the trial has proceeded on different charge-sheets; and where an accused person has been found guilty upon several charges, a sentence which can legally be awarded in respect of one of them will be vaild notwithstanding that it could not legally have been awarded in respect of the others.” MML 1943 ( 1929 edition as reprinted with amendments ) Chapter V para. 76.

“ The proper amount of punishment to be inflicted is the least amount by which discipline can efficiently be maintained” para 78.

The note to Section 40 of the Army Act gives examples as follows:
“ The following are a few instances of offences not uncommonly charged under this section:-
Giving a cheque which is subsequently dishonoured where there is no reasonable ground for supposing that it will be honoured on presentation.
Negligent performance of duties connected with money or stores resulting in a deficiency and loss.
Being in improper possession of public property or of property belonging to an officer or comrade ( where there is no evidence of actual theft). See K.R. 621.
Being in some place away from his unit on a particular date when his duty required him to be with his unit.
Sleeping out instead of in billet.
Improperly using Government car and petrol for private purposes.
Borrowing money from subordinates.
Producing a medical certificate, knowing it not to be genuine.
Being in possession of a document purporting to be genuine leave pass, knowing it not to be genuine.
Improperly wearing uniform or rank badges (or ribbons or medals) to which he is not entitled.
Giving false name to police.
Accepting gifts as an inducement for arranging or excusing duties.
Being unfit for duty by reason of previous indulgence in alcoholic stimulants.
Negligently wounding or injuring self.
Improperly obtaining money in return for railway warrant or ticket.
Improperly obtaining “concession vouchers.”
Improperly using or obtaining railway warrants.
The Act recognises no such offence as “ making a frivolous complaint”; but the repetition of baseless complaints may amount to an offence under this section: so too may a complaint so framed as to be offensive or indicative of insubordination, &c.; see Heddon v. Evans (1919) 35 T.L.R. 642."

Call for Lt-Col Horace Rumpole.