Commanders Guide To Sentencing PDF

ARMY CODE No 64183
Commander’s Guide to Sentencing
Prepared by:
Ministry of Defence
Directorate of Personal Services (Army)
Trenchard Lines
Upavon
PEWSEY
Wiltshire
SN9 6BE
Upavon Mil (94344) 5945 (BT 01980 615945)
Edition 00-4 (Nov 2007)
i
COMMANDER’S GUIDE TO SUMMARY PUNISHMENTS
(‘THE SENTENCING GUIDE’)
CONTENTS
Page Numbers
Introduction iv
Chapter 1: Reaching a Conclusion
Principles 1-1
Seriousness
Aggravation and Mitigation 1-2
Consistency 1-3
Chapter 2: Nature and Consequences of Punishment
General 2-1
Minor Punishments
Stoppages 2-2
Reprimands
Fines
Reduction in Rank 2-3
Forfeiture of Seniority
Detention
Multiple Offences 2-4
Recordable Offences
Compensation and Restitution 2-5
Other Officers with Disciplinary Powers
Army personnel serving in Joint Service Units
Credit for time spent in custody 2-A-1
Table 2-A-1-1
Chapter 3: Common Offences
Introduction 3-1
Use of Detailed Guidance
Detailed Guidance on Specific Charges:

s29 (Offences relating to sentries) 3-A-1 to 3
s29A (Failure to attend for duty, neglect of duty) 3-A-4 to5
s33 (Using violence etc to a superior officer) 3-A-6 to7
s34 (Disobedience to lawful commands) 3-A-8
s36 (Disobedience to standing orders) 3-A-9
s38 (Absence without leave) 3-A-10 to11
s42 (Malingering) 3-A-12
s43 (Drunkenness) 3-A-13
s43A (Fighting) 3-A-14
s44 (Damage to, or loss of, public or Service property) 3-A-15
s46 (Offences related to issued equipment) 3-A-16 to 19
s55 (Resistance to arrest) 3-A-20
s56 (Escape from confinement) 3-A-21
s61 (False Enlistment) 3-A-22
s62 (Making of false documents) 3-A-23
ii
s65 (Ill treatment of officers or men of inferior rank) 3-A-24
s66 (Disgraceful Conduct) 3-A-25-26
s68 (Attempts) 3-A-27
s69 (Conduct prejudicial to good order and military 3-A-28 to 34
discipline)
s70 (Civil offences) 3-A-35 to 40
Table of Awards 3-B-1 to 8

Disposal Of The Record Of Summary Dealing 4-1
SCHEDULE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY
Abbreviation Explanation
AA 55 Army Act 1955
ACR 00 The Army Custody Rules 2000
AFDA 00 Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000
AFA 01 Armed Forces Act 2001
AGAIs Army General and Administrative Instructions
APA The Army Prosecuting Authority
ASA Appropriate Superior Authority
CSD(A)R 06 Custody and Summary Dealing (Army) Regulations 2006
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
HA Higher Authority
HRA 98 Human Rights Act 1998
QRs Queen’s Regulations for the Army 1975
RTTR Reduced to the Ranks
RSD Record of Summary Dealing
SAC The Summary Appeal Court
SAC(A)R 00 The Summary Appeal Court (Army) Rules 2000
This Guide has been produced for the assistance of Commanders exercising their powers of
summary discipline. The guidance is to be interpreted reasonably and intelligently, with due
regard to the interests of the Service. Commanders should bear in mind that no attempt has
been made to provide for necessary or self-evident exceptions.
iii
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Guide. The selection of a just and appropriate punishment

is a critically important aspect of summary discipline. In order to maintain the
effectiveness of the military discipline system as a whole it is essential that
lawful, just, appropriate and proportionate punishments are awarded. The
purpose of this Guide is to assist Commanders in determining punishments
whilst clearly recognising that it is a matter for their judgement alone to
exercise their disciplinary powers, in accordance with AA 55, having taken
account of the merits of the case and the particular circumstances of their
commands. The Guide has been prepared in order to give those officers with
formal disciplinary responsibilities under AA 55 a clear understanding of the
punishments that may be awarded; and an indication of appropriate and
proportionate levels of awards across a range of common offences. It is open
to the Commander to use whatever legal punishment he chooses, the specific
sentencing guidance provided in this document is based on the awards made
in the recent past across the Army and serves to provide a context of
uniformity. In time the introduction of the Armed Forces Act 2006 will
necessitate some amendments to this guide.
Layout. Chapter 1 sets out the principles a Commander should apply when
assessing the appropriate type and level of punishment that is to be awarded.
Chapter 2 gives more detailed guidance on the various types of punishment
that can be awarded and how they should be calculated. Annex A to
Chapter 2 explains the method for making provision for time spent in military
custody when determining awards of detention. Chapter 3 provides detailed
guidance for Commanders in dealing with a range of common offences.
Status. This Guide is not a legal authority for action. Disciplinary action in the
Army is taken in accordance with the provisions of the AA 55 as amended by
the AFDA 00 and AFA 01. Disciplinary procedures are laid down in Rules and
Regulations made by the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Defence
Council. They are complemented by Queen’s Regulations (QRs) for the Army
and by Army General and Administrative Instructions (AGAIs) which describe
the Army’s disciplinary policy and how it should be applied. These
authoritative procedures set out the manner in which all disciplinary action
must be taken. For clarity and brevity, the male gender is used to describe
personnel throughout the Guide. All references in the Guide to the male
gender refer equally to the female gender. The general term ‘Commander’
encompasses all officers exercising disciplinary powers as commanding
officers, subordinate commanders or as Appropriate Superior Authorities
(ASAs). Where it has been necessary to distinguish between different
disciplinary powers of Commanders, specific titles are used.
Advice and Guidance. The powers of punishment at Summary Dealing are

given in AA 55 Sect 76C. Where Commanders are in doubt about the
iv
appropriate action to take they should seek early advice from the G1 and
Legal Staffs in their chain of command.
v
CHAPTER 1
SENTENCING
PRINCIPLES
1. The Commander’s first decision in considering purely professional misconduct is to

decide whether he will deal with the matter as an administrative matter using the
sanctions authorised by AGAI 67 or using his summary powers under AA 55. The
principle should be that matters will be dealt with administratively unless there are good
reasons why summary dealing should be used. Guidance as to the appropriateness of
administrative action is given in Chapter 3.
2. In dealing with charges summarily, and particularly in awarding summary

punishments, Commanders must always bear these underpinning principles in mind.
Summary discipline is exercised directly within the unit by commanders in relation to
those whom they command. The offender must receive a lawful, just, appropriate and
proportionate punishment for his misdeeds. Punishment is usually carried out within the
units. Soldiers are then punished, reformed and rehabilitated in the eyes of their
comrades. It is important for the maintenance of discipline that summary dealing is
carried out expeditiously so that timely justice is seen to be done and confidence in the
chain of command is upheld. Annex A to AGAI 62 directs that Commanders should give
high priority to summary dealings. Conversely those who have shown themselves to be
of bad or faulty character, usually through persistent or particularly serious offending, are
dealt with by the Army as a corporate body through the Courts-Martial system or, in very
serious cases committed in the UK, by the civil courts.
3. The responsibility for assessing the award appropriate to a particular offence rests
with the Commander. Principally, the type and level of punishment depends upon the
seriousness of the offence which the Commander should assess as being High, Medium
or Low seriousness of its type. The individual guidance pages in Annex A to Chapter 3
will show the most common awards for the offence in these categories. The
Commander should then look at mitigating and aggravating factors which he may
choose to take into consideration when deciding his award. As a final check on
consistency he should then look at the full table of historic awards in Annex B to Chapter
3
SERIOUSNESS
4. In making an assessment of the seriousness of an offence, the Commander should

consider the factors listed below:
a. The nature of the offence and its consequences;
b. The frequency with which the offence has been committed by the accused
and others;
c. The effect of the offence on discipline in the unit, formation or the Service;
1-1
d. The necessity to protect other members of the unit and the Service. The
status of the offender, particularly his rank, appointment and whether he is in a
position of trust or responsibility; and the effect on the victim.
AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION
5. The assessment of the level of seriousness of the offence will allow the
Commander to select a level of award which will then be made more or less severe by
taking into account the local circumstances, any aggravating and mitigating factors and
other relevant factors:
a. Aggravating Factors.
(1) Vulnerability of the victim.
(2) Breach of Trust (dishonesty offences, exploitation of subordinates).
(3) Premeditation.
(4) Gratuitous Offending (especially violence).
(5) Group Offending.
(6) Racially Motivated Offending.
(7) Offending whilst awaiting disciplinary action having been charged on

another matter.
(8) A Commander may consider a higher level of punishment than he

might otherwise have done for offenders who have demonstrated a
habitual unwillingness to reform or improve.
(9) If an offence has become widespread or especially deserving of

greater punishment and a deterrent is needed. Unit personnel should have
been informed through routine orders.
(10) Drunkenness
b. Mitigating Factors
(1) Youth and inexperience.
(2) Provocation.
(3) Duress.
(4) Circumstances not amounting to a defence but relevant to

culpability, e.g. mistake or ignorance of the law.
(5) Substantial co-operation with investigators.
(6) Lapse of time since the commission of the offence.
1-2
(7) Past history, character and, where appropriate, professional
performance 1.
(8) Time spent in custody awaiting trial. (A formula for calculating

remission and credit is at Annex A to Chapter 2.)
(9) Mitigating factors specific to the offence.
(10) Expressions of remorse or a readiness to admit to wrongdoing.

Clearly these will carry more weight before a charge has been found
proved and mitigation is being offered.
(11) Admission of guilt; see sub paragraph d.
c. Mitigation and Defence There are some circumstances which may amount
to a defence. For example, if a soldier strikes another who is attacking him he
may be able to represent that blow as self-defence; which is a defence against a
charge of assault. However, if his response to the attack is not reasonable or is
more, he may not use that defence, but yet claim in mitigation that the original
attack on him was a provocation. Commanders should be clear what is the
difference between mitigation and a defence. Where there is any uncertainty
about what constitutes mitigation or a defence, advice should be taken from the
divisional legal advisor.
d. Other Factors
(1) The importance of maintaining good order and military discipline in

the unit, which underpins operational effectiveness.
(2) The accused’s financial situation may be considered. (An individual

should not usually be treated differently because he is married or because
he has particular financial commitments. He would have been well aware
of those responsibilities at the time when he committed the offence, and it
would normally be unfair to discriminate against single personnel to allow
this factor to be taken into account. Nevertheless it is a matter for the
Commander’s judgement whether a measure of hardship should,
exceptionally, be considered. An example would be where the accused is
a lone parent and the mitigating factors are such that the decision to order
custody is finely balanced but an award of detention would result in the
deprivation of all parental care for the children )
(3) The potential effects of punishment on his career in the Service and
(if appropriate) any subsequent career.
(4) The Commander’s duty to protect all other unit personnel from
offenders.
1
Past History. When sentencing, Commanders may take into account those offences which
appear on Regimental and Company Conduct Sheets (AFB 120 and AFB 121 respectively). Separate
rules concerning “Spent” convictions are contained in Annex D to Chap 1 Part 3 of PAM
1-3
e. Admission of Guilt. Whilst there is no plea, as such, in the procedure for
summary dealing, where an accused admits guilt in interview during investigation,
or does not deny the facts during the summary hearing the commander should
allow a mitigation of punishment of up to one third. The mitigation should be
applied after other mitigations and consideration for time spent in detention have
been considered. In making his comments in the Reason for Punishment
Award(s) section of the AFB 6208 the commander should refer to the fact that he
has taken the admission into account. If a Commander fails to record the fact
that he has taken an admission into account in sentencing, then a summary
appeal court, when making a finding on sentence, will start with the given award
then apply the credit before making any adjustments that have arisen from
matters considered in the appeal.
CONSISTENCY
6. Consistency in awarding punishments is important because it strengthens

confidence in military justice. It is necessary to treat like with like and departures from
this guideline should be supported with reasoned explanation in the AF A6208 at
paragraph 3. These help the SAC when considering appeals. This explanation should
include any mitigating or aggravating factors taken into account including custody,
remorse, acceptance of the facts etc. Statements like “to maintain discipline” or “this kind
of thing will not be tolerated in my unit” are not helpful.
1-4
CHAPTER 2
THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF PUNISHMENT
GENERAL
7. Commanders have a wide and flexible range of disciplinary powers available to

them under the provisions of AA 55. Summary punishments range from admonition, at
the least severe end of the scale, through minor punishments and reprimands to fines
and detention at the most severe end. Commanders must determine the most
appropriate punishment not only in the context of the offence but also in the context of
the factors relating to the offender set out in Chapter 1. Where inexperience or
immaturity is a factor, lighter punishments may be appropriate. Where offenders are
more senior or more experienced, they may attract heavier punishments. Commanders
must decide each case strictly on its merits whilst maintaining the basic requirements of
fairness and consistency.
MINOR PUNISHMENTS
8. Commanders may award minor punishments for the least serious of offences; and
as supplementary punishments when a fine has been awarded. Minor punishments may
be used particularly appropriately to make "the punishment fit the crime" or, in the case
of admonition, simply to deliver a rebuke 2 in the formal circumstances of a summary
hearing. Minor punishments fall into 3 categories:
a. Restriction of Privileges(RPs). The withdrawal of privileges enjoyed by

well-behaved soldiers should be the normal sanction for the usually well-behaved
soldier who has erred. RPs impose a restrictive regime of reporting and
inspection on a soldier in order to improve his personal standards of self-
discipline. A short period of RPs ought to be adequate to punish a soldier who is
usually self-disciplined. For the less well-behaved a longer period of RPs may
serve as a warning that a more serious punishment is likely to be imposed if he
does not mend his ways. Although technically regarded as a minor punishment a
period of RPs can have a more salutary effect than a fine imposed on a soldier
with a relatively high disposable income. A Commanding Officer may award a
maximum of 14 days' RPs; a Subordinate Commander may award up to 7 days'
RPs. The rules for the use of RPs are contained in QR 6.073
b. Extra Guards. Up to 3 extra guard duties may be awarded as a summary

punishment for offences committed on guard duty only.
c. Admonition. A Commander may admonish a soldier for his conduct. This

amounts to a formal acknowledgement that the soldier is guilty of the offence but
that the Commander does not judge it serious enough, on a particular occasion,
to warrant punishment. Admonishment does require the Commander to address
the soldier about the offence even if it is only to tell him what the repercussions
might be if he re-offends. No other punishment except stoppages may be
awarded when a soldier is admonished. Admonition can only be taken into
2
In the normal meaning of the word not as an AGAI 67 sanction.
2-1
account for future offences, other than absence without leave, committed within
the 3 months following the award.
d. RPs in Lieu of a Fine. There may be occasions when the Commander has
assessed that the most suitable punishment for a particular offence would be a
fine but considers that the circumstances render a financial punishment
inappropriate in the particular circumstances of the offender. On these
occasions, he may award RPs in lieu of a fine on a scale which takes account of
the local circumstances. This is a matter of policy which may be applied at the
Commander’s discretion and within his normal powers.
STOPPAGES
9. Any soldier may be placed under stoppages of pay (PUSP) in addition to any other
punishment awarded. Stoppages are not fines. They are a means of making good the
consequences of an offence by recovering some of the cost of a loss or damage caused
by the offence. In view of the high cost of equipment, stoppages may represent only a
very small proportion of the actual cost of the loss or damage. Nevertheless the impact
of stoppages on the individual may be very significant. The cost of the loss or damage
must be shown in Pounds Sterling on the charge report and be included in the charge.
Before awarding stoppages a Commander must have considered evidence of the cost of
the loss or damage stated on the charge. A Commander may seek extended powers
from Higher Authority to place a soldier under stoppages of pay in excess of the
permitted equivalent of 14 days' pay. The Commander could in certain circumstances
award a fine of 28 days pay and PUSP 14 days, however, he must bear in mind the
cumulative punitive effect of the punishment and stoppages awarded.
10. When loss or damage to Service property has occurred the circumstances must
be investigated appropriately and thoroughly. This may require a Regimental Inquiry or,
in more serious cases, a Board of Inquiry (See QR 5.010).
REPRIMANDS
11. A Reprimand or Severe Reprimand is often awarded as a punishment for an

offence involving a professional failing. It may be awarded to a substantive lance
corporal, corporal, sergeant or staff sergeant (or their equivalents). A Reprimand should
be considered in the light of its potential consequences for a soldier's career (specifically
in the context of his own regiment or corps) and reputation. There is no direct career
impact but because they may be recorded as Regimental Entries (See QR Chap 5
Annex H) Reprimands can have a collateral effect on a soldier's record when in the zone
for promotion, or on the award of the Long Service and Good Conduct medal or
Meritorious Service Medal. The Accused’s Adviser should therefore carefully explain the
potential effects of a reprimand to the offender after the award of punishment has been
made. A Subordinate Commander may not award a Severe Reprimand. Reprimands
are not to be confused with displeasures and severe displeasures which are
administrative sanctions and have a direct career effect which is defined in AGAI 67.
Nevertheless Reprimands for SSgts and above and Severe Reprimands for all ranks will
still be recorded as a Regimental Entry and will be seen by promotion boards.
2-2
FINES
12. A fine is a purely financial penalty whose consequences for the individual must be
assessed by the Commander. An appropriate fine will leave the offender in no doubt
that he has been properly punished: it should hurt him but not cripple him. A fine which
is too light is likely to be viewed as derisory and may undermine the authority of the
Commander in exercising discipline. Commanders should bear in mind that a fine is not
restitution and should not be equated with any financial loss arising from the offence.
13. Fines are always to be expressed as an amount in Pounds Sterling, not as

"x days’ pay". A day's pay for one soldier can be significantly different from that of
another soldier who has longer service or who is on a different trade scale of pay. Such
an award would be seen to be unfair if the intention were to punish the two soldiers
identically. However, when the offence involves soldiers of different ranks it may be
appropriate to fine those of higher rank more, for example, in order to reflect the more
serious abuse of trust and responsibility in appropriate cases. A Commanding Officer
has the power to award a fine up to the equivalent of 28 days' pay; a Subordinate
Commander is restricted to 7 days' pay. Any award of a fine in excess of 7 days’ pay
automatically becomes a Regimental Entry on his Conduct Sheet.
REDUCTION IN RANK
14. A Commander may reduce a substantive lance corporal (or equivalent) to the rank
of private (or equivalent). This punishment demonstrates the public disapproval of the
Commander and highlights the failings of the individual as a junior commander in the
eyes of his superiors and his comrades. A Commander may also remove acting rank
from any soldier with whom he has powers to deal. Should he take either of these
actions, the Commander must not award any additional punishment other than
stoppages. Reduction in rank carries an associated financial penalty through loss of pay
at the higher rank.
FORFEITURE OF SENIORITY
15. An ASA may, except in the case of a warrant officer, award a punishment of
forfeiture of seniority. He may not award a fine for the same offence. The actual and
potential effects of a forfeiture of seniority should be carefully explained to the offender
by the Accused’s Adviser after the award of punishment has been made. Commanding
Officers and Subordinate Commanders may not award a punishment of forfeiture of
seniority.
DETENTION
16. Detention is the most serious punishment a Commander may award as the
individual is deprived of his liberty. It should normally only be used in the last resort
when other lesser punishments have failed to take effect. The purpose of detention
served at the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC), is to improve the personal
standards, self discipline and military skills of the detainee. He should return to his
comrades a better soldier for his experience. Unit detention is likely to be solely punitive
in effect. Therefore, in awarding a punishment of detention, the Commander should
consider both the reformative and deterrent effects on the individual and the wider
message of deterrence it sends to the unit. Only Commanding Officers may summarily
2-3
award punishments of detention. Detention may not be awarded by a Subordinate
Commander.
17. Detention is not to be confused with imprisonment which may only be awarded by
a court-martial or a civil court; and which normally requires the dismissal of the individual
from the Service 3. Detention does not attract a prison record. Time spent in detention is
unpaid and any period of detention over 7 days does not count as reckonable service.
Therefore there is a significant financial penalty associated with detention which
Commanders must bear in mind.
18. Detention may be served at the MCTC, Colchester, or in a licensed 4 unit detention
facility. A Commanding Officer may only award a sentence of detention to a private
soldier. This will normally be up to a maximum of 28 days but the Commanding Officer
may apply to Higher Authority for extended powers to increase a sentence in a specific
case up to a maximum of 60 days. He must do this prior to the summary hearing. This
extension of powers will allow the Commanding Officer to deal with a more serious
charge which can still properly be dealt with summarily rather than be referred for trial by
court-martial.
19. Guidance on remission and credit for time spent in custody is given at Annex A to
this chapter. An award of detention over 14 days (21 days outside the UK) should
normally be served at MCTC, Colchester. Soldiers under 18 years must serve
sentences over 6 days at MCTC.
MULTIPLE OFFENCES
20. As a result of the changes made following AFDA 00, a separate punishment is to
be awarded for each charge that is found proved when several charges are heard
together. Where multiple charges are to be heard together ALS advice should be
sought. This contrasts with the previous practice of making a 'global award' of
punishment for a group of charges. Separate punishments must be identifiable in order
to allow a soldier to appeal against the finding and award for one, several, or all of the
charges. The Summary Appeal Court may then deal with those specific charges rather
than having to attempt to break down a 'global award' into proportionate parts.
Sentences of detention awarded for charges awarded together are to be served
concurrently. Special care must be taken when dealing with lance corporals (or
equivalents)(CSD(A)R 06 11 applies).
21. When dealing with more than one charge against an individual at the same
hearing AFDA 00 allows a Commander to award the most suitable punishment he sees
fit on each charge. He may therefore award periods of detention on some charges and
financial penalties on other charges at the same hearing. He may not award both
detention and a financial penalty for the same charge. The Commander's powers in
these circumstances are, however, constrained. Therefore, where more than one award
of detention is contemplated, the Commander must bear in mind that each period of
detention will run concurrently. Fines are cumulative but the total may not exceed the
maximum limits set for Commanders (7 days' pay and 28 days' pay awarded by a
Subordinate Commander and a Commanding Officer respectively). Therefore, although
3
QRs Paragraph 9.404
4
Unit detention facilities may only licensed by PM(A)
2-4
each charge must be considered separately in accordance with the factors set out
earlier in this Guide, a Commander must consider the overall effect that the total award
of punishment will have on the offender. Although it is possible on multiple charges to
award detention and a fine as a matter of policy those who are sentenced to detention
should not also be fined because of the severe financial penalty associated with
detention. Although each charge attracts a separate penalty, commanders should follow
the practice of civil courts by taking a global approach and then breaking down the
overall effect to achieve that global aim. Commanders can award concurrent sentences
on all charges but where an offence is less serious may award “Admonished” against a
charge.
22. In dealing with more than one charge in the same hearing, Commanders should
bear in mind the principle that the greater the number of offences, the more likely it is
that a greater level of punishment may be appropriate for later offences. An offence
might warrant a particular punishment but if, at the same hearing, the accused faces
further connected charges relating to a repetition of that offence, the later charges may
well attract more severe awards.
RECORDABLE OFFENCES
23. Details of certain offences (those contrary to Section 70 of AA 55 and some others
akin to civil offences) even when tried summarily, are reported to the National
Identification Service for recording on the Police National Computer (PNC). A report to
the PNC has far reaching consequences, giving the offender a criminal record. Details
of the offence will be available to agencies involved with law enforcement as well as, in
certain circumstances, some organisations with a special interest in the background of
prospective employees. Nevertheless it is essential that a charge must reflect the
offence committed. An alternative, lesser charge, the conviction of which is not
recordable, should not be substituted just to avoid the possibility of a criminal record.
When considering charging a soldier under Section 70, Commanders should seek legal
advice.
COMPENSATION AND RESTITUTION
24. In some cases it may seem appropriate to the Commander that compensation or
restitution should be made to the victim of an offence. For example, the victim of an
assault or someone injured by a round negligently fired. Stoppages only apply to
quantifiable loss and there are no powers for Commanders at summary dealing to order
compensation or restitution for personal injury. Therefore, if Commanders feel that
compensation might be appropriate they should not try the offence themselves but refer
it to HA with a view to trial by Court Martial. Stoppages provide compensation to the
victim of an offence and should take precedence over a fine in applicable cases.
OTHER OFFICERS WITH DISCIPLINARY POWERS
25. An ASA, who is usually at least one rank higher than the Commanding Officer and
in the appointment of brigade or garrison commander, has the power to deal summarily
with officers with the rank of substantive lieutenant colonel and below, all substantive
warrant officers and, in certain circumstances, civilians. Substantive lieutenant colonels
and below may be dealt with summarily by a more senior ASA, usually the divisional
commander. An ASA’s powers of punishment are found in AA 55 s.76C.
2-5
26. A Commanding Officer may, if he chooses, delegate certain disciplinary powers to
Subordinate Commanders. The offences and ranks of accused that can be dealt with
under these delegated powers are limited and are shown in CSD(A)R 06 r.16. The
Commanding Officer can place further restrictions based upon the rank and experience
of the officer to whom he is delegating them. A Detachment Commander below field
rank may also have his powers of punishment restricted under CSD(A)R 06 r14.
ARMY PERSONNEL SERVING IN JOINT SERVICE UNITS
27. A Joint Service unit may be commanded by an officer of any of the three Services.
Soldiers serving in such units may be dealt with summarily under the Naval Discipline
Act or the Air Force Act(as appropriate to the Service of the Commander) rather than
AA 55. Where this is the case, this Guide may still be consulted.
TRANSITION TO THE ARMED FORCES ACT
28. The Armed Forces Act 2006 comes into force in January 2009. A joint sentencing
guide will be issued to support the 2006 Act. Offences under the new Act will be broadly
similar to those in the current Act and until such time as the joint guide is available
Commanders, when dealing with offences against the 2006 Act, should judge what was
the equivalent offence under the 1955 Act and be guided by the advice in that section.
2-6
ANNEX A TO
CHAPTER 2 OF THE
COMMANDER’S GUIDE TO SENTENCING
CREDIT FOR TIME SPENT IN CUSTODY
PRINCIPLES
1. When a summary punishment of detention is awarded, credit must be given for

time spent in military custody before the charge was dealt with summarily. This as a
result of a High Court ruling and is in line with guidance to civil courts. It is binding on
courts-martial and is to be applied to summary awards of detention.
2. Awards of detention automatically attract remission of 1/3 of the total sentence

except for sentences below 36 days. This is to be explained, and the date of release is
to be given after the hearing. This may be done at MCTC or by a unit officer. The
Commander should avoid being drawn into a discussion of remission calculations with
the offender during the summary hearing. The credit given for time spent in military
custody must include an allowance for the remission which would have been earned.
3. Special care must be taken over sentences of between 24 and 35 days because
any credit for remission cannot reduce the sentence to less than 24 days. For example,
if a sentence of 28 days detention is awarded, the full remission of one-third (10 days)
could not be given. If no time had been spent in custody beforehand, the sentence
served would be the minimum 24 days. Where time has been spent in custody, credit
will be given on a strictly ‘day for day’ basis.
4. Deductions of fractions of days are to be rounded up in favour of the soldier.
EXAMPLE 1
5. The Commanding Officer considers that 60 days detention is the appropriate

punishment in relation to Soldiers A and B and has been granted extended powers by
the HA for this purpose. Soldier A has not been in military custody, but Soldier B has
been in military custody for 15 days.
6. Soldier A. The Commanding Officer will announce a sentence of “60 days

detention”. Remission for good behaviour is assumed but has to be earned. Remission
is one third of the total which is 20 days. The calculation of remission and therefore the
release date will be a matter for determination after the hearing. These will be explained
to the offender at MCTC or, if the sentence is to be served in the unit, by a unit officer.
7. Soldier B. Time spent in military custody, and remission earned on that time, must
first be deducted (15 days x 3/2=23 days). This leaves 37 days (60-23) which will attract
a one third remission for good behaviour. Therefore the Commanding Officer will
announce a sentence of “37 days detention having taken into account the 15 days
spent in military custody”. The calculation of remission (in this case, 13 days [Part
days are always rounded to the benefit of the prisoner]) and therefore the release date
2-A-1
will be a matter for determination after the hearing. These will be explained to the
offender at MCTC or, if the sentence is to be served in the unit, by a unit officer.
EXAMPLE 2: SPECIAL CASE
8. The Commanding Officer considers that 28 days detention is the appropriate

punishment in relation to Soldiers C and D. Soldier C has not been in military custody,
but Soldier D has been in military custody for 7 days.
9. Soldier C. The Commanding Officer will announce an award of “28 days

detention”. The sentence in this case cannot be reduced by the full one third of
remission because it would reduce it to below 24 days. The maximum permissible
remission here is 4 days. This calculation and therefore the release date will be a matter
for determination after the hearing. These will be explained to the offender at MCTC or,
if the sentence is to be served in the unit, by a unit officer.
10. Soldier D. In these circumstances, in order to ensure fairness, the Commanding

Officer must automatically assume remission which will provide a starting point of
24 days. He must then deduct the time spent in military custody on a ‘day for day’ basis
(24-7=17). Therefore the award will be “17 days, taking into account the
7 days you spent in military custody” No remission is available on this period of
detention as it is less than 24 days. This fact, and therefore the release date, will be
explained to the offender at MCTC or, if the sentence is to be served in the unit, by a
unit officer.
TABLE
11. A ready reckoner table is at Appendix 1.
2-A-2
APPENDIX 1 TO ANNEX A TO
CHAPTER 2 OF THE
PRE TRIAL CUSTODY CALCULATOR
Methodology - Find Start Point, Calculate days in Pre Trial Custody, where the columns meet is the actual sentence to be
awarded.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Days in Pre Trial Custody
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
18 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
19 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
20 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
21 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
22 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Note
1. Pre Trial Custody includes pre-charge custody., post-charge custody and time in civil custody.
2. No remission is granted for sentences under 24 days, Pre Trial Custody is returned at a day for a day.
2-A- 1-1
CHAPTER 3
COMMON OFFENCES
28. This Chapter offers detailed advice about the way in which certain common
offences should be approached by Commanders in order to assist them in making
lawful, just, appropriate and proportionate awards of summary punishments. The
specific punishment awarded in any particular case is strictly a matter for the
Commander’s judgement.
29. Scales of Punishment. The range of punishments shown in the detailed advice
contained in the tables are in some cases qualified by the terms ‘light, medium, heavy’
etc. The scale of punishments in increasing order of severity is as shown below:
Punishment Severity (from lightest to heaviest, top to bottom)

Minor Admonition
Punishments Extra Guards
Restriction of Privileges
Reprimands Reprimand
Severe Reprimand
Reduction in rank Commanding Officers may only reduce a LCpl in rank or order
a soldier holding acting rank to revert to his substantive rank.
Fines Fines are always recorded on conduct sheets and records of
summary hearing in £s. However, in order to compare like
offences across a spectrum of ranks, fines are expressed in
this document in bands as follows.
A Less than 2 days gross pay
B 3 → 7 days gross pay
C 8 → 21 days gross pay
D 22 → 28 days gross pay
Forfeiture of This is not available to Commanding Officers but may be
seniority awarded by an ASA to an officer but not a warrant officer.
Detention: Short Up to 7 days
Medium 8-14 days
Long 15-28 days (60 days with
extended powers)
30. Use of Detailed Guidance. Specimen charges and detailed notes related to
specific common charges are set out in the following section. These specific notes
complement the general factors (set out in Chapter 1) which the Commander should
consider in all cases. He should also refer to the notes appended to the appropriate
section of AA 55 in the Manual of Military Law Part 1. Familiarity with these references,
and thorough application, will assist the Commander in explaining the reasons for a
particular punishment and the level of severity with which it has been applied. The
Commander is required to set out these reasons in the Record of Summary Dealing.(AF
A6208)
3 -1
31. Common Punishments. In each of the tables a modal sentence range is indicated
for High, Medium or Low seriousness. The percentage of all sentences which lie in that
range is indicated. On some occasions the guide sheet has ignored a sentence from the
table when the sentence is either aberrant or has obviously been charged with another
offence. Commanders should also be aware that the common punishments data was
gathered in 2003 and 2004 before AGAI 67 was used instead of AA 55 when dealing
with many minor offences.
3 -2
ANNEX A TO
CHAPTER 3 OF THE
DETAILED GUIDANCE ON CHARGING
Sect 29(a) SLEEPING WHEN ON GUARD DUTY CONTRARY TO SECTION

29(a) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What needs to • The accused must know that he was on guard.

be proved • He was asleep
Special Points To • s29 covers most offences which may be committed on guard
Note About duty. However some offences will more properly fall under other
Charging specific sections of the Act eg disobedience to standing orders,
s36(1).
• Guard or sentry duty may be undertaken in barracks, on exercise
or on operations.
Administrative This is an offence which may be dealt with using AGAI 67 if there
Action are strong mitigating factors
Mitigating • Prolonged period of duty compounded by previous duty

Factors • Lack of supervision
• Level of experience
Aggravating • Operational Environment

Factors • Obvious intention to sleep eg offender found in sleeping bag
• Influence of alcohol (Consider charge of Drunkenenss)
• Previous offence
Common • High (2%) – 1-7Days Detention

• Medium (48%) - Fine Band B-C
Punishments • Low(26%) - Extra Guards
Sentencing The Commander may consider the wider exemplary, and deterrent,
Guidance effects of punishment on the offender and on the unit.
The circumstances and the possible, or likely, consequences will

determine the seriousness of the offence (as opposed to the
mitigation which considers factors concerning the offender).
Sleeping on sentry in the face of an enemy or terrorist threat is a
very serious offence; at the other end of the scale, an offence
3-A-1
committed by a recruit during a controlled exercise might be
considered relatively minor.
This offence is one for which extra guards can be awarded.
3-A-2
Sect 29(a) LEAVING HIS PLACE OF DUTY WHEN ON GUARD DUTY
CONTRARY TO SECTION 29(a) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What needs to • The accused must know that he is on guard.

be proved • He leaves his post without permission.
Special Points To • This offence is committed when a person without having been
Note About regularly relieved, leaves any place where it is his duty to be. This
Charging section should be used for guard duties; leaving any other duty
should be charged under Sec 29A
Administrative This is an offence which may be dealt with using AGAI 67 if there
Action are strong mitigating factors
Mitigating • Lack of supervision.

Factors • Level of experience.
• Lack of a timely relief.
Aggravating • Operational Environment or Security Implications.

Factors • Obvious planned intention to leave.
• Previous offence.
Common High(2%) - 1-7 Days Detention

Punishments Medium(13%) - Fine Band B
Low(73%) - Extra Guards
Guidance effects of punishment on the offender and on the unit. Leaving a
guard can be no less serious than falling asleep.
The circumstances and the possible, or likely, consequences will
determine the seriousness of the offence (as opposed to the
mitigation, which considers factors concerning the offender).
This offence is one which extra guards can be awarded.
3-A-3
Sect 29(b)/ Sect USING/THREATENING FORCE AGAINST A PERSON ON GUARD
29(c) CONTRARY TO SECTION 29(b) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What needs to • The accused used force or a threat of force to pass by a sentry.
be proved • The threat of force should be credible to the sentry.
Special Points To • This 0ffence is committed when a person uses force to prevent a
Note About person on guard doing their duty. The persons on guard include
Charging MPGS but do not include MODGS. It may not be charged at the
same time as an assault for the same incident. If the force used on
the guard is such that an injury is sustained, other than one which is
merely trivial, then the charge should be Assault and the fact that the
victim was doing his duty becomes an aggravating factor.
Administrative This is an offence should not be dealt with using AGAI 67.
Action
Mitigating • Reflex reaction to a challenge by the guard.
Factors
Aggravating • Operational Environment or Security Implications.
Factors • Injury to the Guard.
• Armed Guard.
• Previous offence.

Low (3%) - RPs
Guidance effects of punishment on the offender and on the unit. Using force
against a guard is a serious offence not only because of the element
of assault but because the guard in exercising his duty properly
represents the authority of the Commanding Officer. An assault
against and armed guard displays a serious recklessness about the
potential consequences.
3-A-4
Sect 29A(a) FAILING TO ATTEND FOR A DUTY CONTRARY TO SECTION
29A(a) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What needs to • That the accused had been told to attend or that it had been
be proved published that he had to attend.
• That he did not attend.
• That he did not have a reasonable excuse.
Special Points To • The more serious the consequences that could have been
Note About foreseen by the individual, either by instruction or through
Charging experience, the more blameworthy he is.
• This section may be used when a soldier has not reported for a
particular duty but is not deemed to be absent without leave.
• Do not use this section alongside AWOL if they are part of the
same incident.
• Separate offences e.g. failed at 1000hrs and 2500hrs must be
charged as 2 offences.
Administrative This is an offence which may be dealt with using AGAI 67 unless
Action there are aggravating factors.
Mitigating • Lack of experience.

Factors • Unclear orders [A substantial lack of clarity might be a
reasonable excuse and constitute a defence].
Aggravating • Deliberate misunderstanding

Factors • Previous offences of the same nature
• Importance of the duty missed.
• Consequences
• Operational environment
Common High(3 %) - Up to 7 Days Detention

Low(34%) - RPs
Sentencing This offence covers a wide variety of circumstances and

Guidance punishments reflect this. Only 3.2% of offences charged under this
section attract periods of detention and 34% are dealt with using
minor punishments.
3-A-5
Sect 29A(b) NEGLECTING TO PERFORM/NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMING A
DUTY CONTRARY TO SECTION 29A(b) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • There is a recognised duty or element of a duty of which the

proved accused is aware.
• That the duty was not performed or was wilfully or negligently
performed.
Special Points To • There is a distinction to be drawn between neglecting to perform
Note About a duty and failing to attend for a duty. In the former case, the
Charging accused may have attended his place of duty but neglected to
perform a specific duty imposed upon him. Neglecting to perform a
duty may arise from wilfulness or neglect. Negligent performance of
a duty by contrast implies that the duty was performed, but was
performed in a negligent manner. Under this s-s. the offence of
neglecting to perform a duty should, generally, be reserved for cases
where there is a recognised duty which has not been carried out.
Where, however, the accused has performed the duty but in doing
so has failed to exercise the degree of care which can reasonably be
expected from a person of his rank and service, the charge should
usually be one of negligently performing a duty.
Administrative This is an offence which may be dealt with using AGAI 67 unless
Action there are aggravating factors.
Mitigating • Poor Training.

Factors • Confused Orders.
• Inexperience.
• One off lapse of performance.
Aggravating • Actual severe consequences such as that which threatens safety.

Factors • Alcohol.
• Wilfulness.
• Poor professional record.
Common High (0.2%) –22-28 Days Detention

Punishments Medium (42%) - Fine Band B
Low(18%) - RPs
Sentencing This section covers a wide range of offences and as such the
Guidance sentence range is wide. It is for the Commander to gauge the
seriousness of the particular offence with which he is dealing.
3-A-6
Sect 33(1)(a) USING /OFFERING VIOLENCE TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER
CONTRARY TO SECTION 33(1)(a) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • That violence or an offer of violence was made.

proved • That the accused knew that the other person was a superior.
• That any offer of violence was capable of being delivered.
Special Points To • In this section the expression "superior officer", in relation to any
Note About person, means an officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned
Charging officer of the regular forces of superior rank, and includes an officer,
warrant officer or non-commissioned officer of those forces of equal
rank but greater seniority while exercising authority as the said
person's superior. The superior’s name and rank should be listed in
the charge.
• Legal advice should be sought if there are any possibility that the
offence might amount to a more serious assault charge.
• Includes superiors of other Services provided the superior is
subject to military law.
Administrative This is not an offence which should be dealt with using AGAI 67.
Action
Mitigating • Provocation.
Factors • Offence takes place away from a Service environment.
• Incident badly handled by superiors.
Aggravating • Actual Violence used .

Factors • Warnings to control the situation unheeded.
• Part of a pattern of insubordination.
• Made in a public place that others might hear.

Low(23%) - RPs
Sentencing There is an obvious difference in the seriousness of offence between

Guidance offering violence and actually using it, however, an attempt to strike
that does not connect would be a serious aggravating factor.
The Commander will also be very aware of the need to maintain

good order and military discipline and particularly to support junior
commanders.
3-A-7
Sect 33(1)(b) USING THREATENING/ INSUBORDINATE LANGUAGE TO HIS
SUPERIOR OFFICER CONTRARY TO SECTION 33(1)(b) OF THE
ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • That threatening or insubordinate language was used.

proved • That the accused knew that the other person was a superior.
Special Points To • Threatening language means language from which a person may
Note About reasonably infer that violence may be used. This may be inferred
Charging either from the character of the words used or from the surrounding
circumstances. All threatening language is insubordinate but the
converse is not the case. In any case therefore in which it is doubtful
if the words used constituted a threat the accused should be
charged with using "insubordinate language" and not with using
"threatening language".
• Insubordinate language. The words must be used with an
insubordinate intent, i.e., they must either in themselves, or in the
manner or circumstances in which they are spoken, be insulting or
disrespectful and in all cases it must reasonably appear that they
were intended to be heard by the superior. On the other hand, the
words themselves need not necessarily be discourteous just the
manner in which they are said or used.
Administrative This is not an offence which should be dealt with using AGAI 67
Action unless there are strong mitigating factors.
Factors • Incident badly handled by superiors.
• Offence takes place away from a Service environment.
• Language not intended to be heard by superior officer.
Aggravating • Warnings to control the situation unheeded.

Factors • Part of a pattern of insubordination.
• Made in a public place that others might hear.
• Consider charging with Drunkenness if appropriate.

Low (23%) - RPs
Sentencing A step back from offering violence or actually using it, however, the
Guidance fabric of military discipline is still being challenged and the
Commander will wish to support his junior commanders. On the
other hand failing to respond to mitigation such as provocation or
poor leadership will only serve to deepen a sense of grievance.
3-A-8
Where minor punishments are envisaged then Administrative Action
should be the first consideration
3-A-9
Sect 34 DISOBEYING A LAWFUL COMMAND CONTRARY TO SECTION
34 OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • That the command was lawful.
proved • That it was given by someone entitled to give it.
• That the accused received the order.
• That the order was not carried out at the time it was supposed to
be.
Special Points To • The disobedience must relate to the time when the command is
Note About to be obeyed. If the command demands a prompt and immediate
Charging compliance the accused will have disobeyed it if he does not comply
at once. If the command is one which has to be complied with at
some future time, however short, e.g., an order to parade "in 10
minutes time", the person to whom it is given cannot be charged
under this s. until he has had, and fails to take, a proper opportunity
of carrying out the command notwithstanding that he may have said
he would not obey the command when given it.
Administrative This offence may in some circumstances be dealt with using

Action Administrative Action using AGAI 67.
Mitigating The degree to which these mitigations apply may cause them to be
Factors considered a defence.
• The accused was not clear that he had been given an order.
• Order passed through a third party.
• Conflict of duty priorities.
Aggravating • Operational Theatre.

Factors • Clear order personally given blatantly disobeyed.
• Repeat Offence.
• Wilful disobedience.

Punishments Medium(37%) - Fine Band A- B
Low(44%) - RPs
Sentencing Commanders will wish to support the chain of command and deal
Guidance firmly with any deliberate refusal to obey orders.
Where minor punishments are envisaged then Administrative Action
should be the first consideration.
3-A-10
Sect 36(1) DISOBEDIENCE TO STANDING ORDERS CONTRARY TO
SECTION 36(1) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • That the accused disobeyed or contravened an order.
proved • That the accused knew or could have reasonably be expected to
know about the order.
• That the order was lawful and published
Special Points To • It is the duty of all ranks to acquaint themselves with orders to
Note About which this s. applies, Q.R. (1975) 5.122. Evidence must be
Charging adduced at the trial to prove that the orders were published as
required by Q.R. (1975) 5.122 if such a form of publication is
appropriate.
Administrative This is an offence that can be dealt with using Administrative Action
Action under AGAI 67 but never in the case of an offence that would be
charged under the Road Traffic Act if committed in the UK.
Mitigating • New in unit.

Factors • Lack of knowledge of Standing Order.
• Low impact on operational effectiveness.
Aggravating • Prevalent offence.

Factors • Where the Standing Order has been repeated on Routine
Orders.
• Group offence.
• Blatant Disobedience.
Common High (5%) – 1-7 Days Detention

Low(67%) - RPs
Sentencing The seriousness of the offence varies with the importance of the
Guidance standing order and with the level of wilfulness and insubordination
with which it is disobeyed. Where minor punishments are envisaged
then Administrative Action should be the first consideration.
3-A-11
Sect 38(a) ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE CONTRARY TO SECTION 38(a) OF
THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • The time and date that the absence began.
proved • The time and date at which the absence ended.
• That the accused had no lawful right to be absent.
• His absence was due to an act or omission on his part.
Special Points To • As to the guidance about the framing of the charge and the
Note About evidence required to support it, read the supplementary notes to this
Charging section in the Manual of Military Law.
Administrative Absence up to 48 hrs in duration should be dealt with under AGAI 67

Action except where there are other charges to be answered or the
offender is a persistent absentee.
Mitigating • Compassionate reasons.

Factors • Voluntary surrender.
• Low level of recklessness.
Aggravating • Unit on operations.

Factors • Unit warned for operations.
• Arrested Absentee.
• Seeking to involve others.
• Repeat offences.
Common Under 7 High (29%) –1-7 Days Detention

Punishments days Medium(32%) - Fine Band B
Low (22%)- RPs
8 -14 days High(30%) - 8-14 Days Detention

Medium(16%) - Fine Band B
Low (18%)- RPs
15 - 21 High(32%) - 8-14 Days Detention

days Medium (7%) - Fine Band B/C
Low (4%)- RPs

days Medium(8%) - Fine Band C
Low (12%)- RPs
3-A-12
days Medium(4%) - Fine Band C
Low (5%)- RPs
Over 100 High(27%) - 50 days plus Days Detention

days at Medium(4%) - Fine Band C
Summary Low(7%) – RPs
Dealing
Sentencing Commanders should always seek legal advice for absence over 120
Guidance days.
There may be a tendency in the case of longer term absentees to
give lower or even minor punishments with a view to discharging the
soldier, getting rid of the problem at the earliest opportunity however
this goes against the principle of deterrence. Commanders should
be wary, by doing this, that they may give the signal that “if you find
yourself absent then you might as well stay absent”.
Uniquely, this section shows the sentences given by Courts-Martial.
Commanders must, for the sake of equity, be aware of what
penalties are being awarded by Courts-Martial before deciding to
deal with cases of absence where sentencing powers are limited.
Commanders should also be aware of the effect of periods spent in
pre and post charge custody and take PS2(A) policy 11/2005 into
account.
Following a guilty finding, in addition to the punishment, the CO
should inform the accused that his pay will be forfeit for the period of
absence. This is information for the offender and is not to be entered
as part of the record of sentence.
3-A-13
Sect 42(1)(a) MALINGERING CONTRARY TO SECTION 42(1)(a) OF THE ARMY
ACT 1955
What has to be • That the accused feigned illness.

proved
Special Points To • There are a number of ways of committing the offence and
Note About attention is drawn to the guidance notes accompanying this section
Charging in the Manual of Military Law. Only offences under sub section (a) -
“falsely pretend.(ing) to be suffering from sickness or disability” can
be tried summarily.
• Where it is alleged that the accused injured himself or another or
did something to prolong an injury or illness with the intention of
avoiding some duty the charge should be referred for court-martial.
Administrative This offence should not normally be dealt with using Administrative
Action Action under AGAI 67.
Mitigating • Single offence.

Factors • Following a period of heavy commitment.
Aggravating • Operational environment.

Factors • Avoiding deployment.
• Avoidance of arduous duty or military training assessments.
• Repeat or long term malingering.
Common High(0%)
Low (20%)- RPs
This offence has a low prevalence and statistical indications
may be unreliable.
Sentencing The importance of the duty being avoided as well as the length of
Guidance time the malingering has gone on dictates the seriousness of the
offence. The Commander should assure himself that this is a simple
avoidance of duty rather than a sign of a genuine physical or
psychological problem.
3-A-14
Sect 43(1) DRUNKENNESS CONTRARY TO SECTION 43(1) OF THE ARMY
ACT 1955
What has to be • That the accused was drunk (under the influence of alcohol or
proved another drug.
• That his behaviour was disorderly and likely to bring discredit on
the Army
or
• That the accused was unfit for a duty.
• That the accused might reasonably expect to perform that duty.
Special Points To • A witness who states in evidence that the accused was drunk
Note About should state his reasons for saying so. (“His speech was slurred, his
Charging eyes were glazed, he was unsteady on his feet and he smelt of
alcohol – in my opinion he was drunk”).
• Proving the influence of a drug other than alcohol is difficult and if
such is suspected the RMP, should be called in.
• To prove discredit to the Army it is not necessary to show that
persons outside the Service witnessed the behaviour simply that it
was discreditable.
• See Q.R. (1975) 6.023-24 as to examination of soldiers
suspected of being drunk. The general rule is that a soldier who is
suspected simply of being drunk shall not be put through any drill or
test. If, however, a doctor has examined such a soldier for the
purpose of ascertaining his condition he may be called in the same
way as any other witness to describe what he saw when the soldier
was brought before him and state whether in his opinion, based on
what he saw, the soldier was drunk.
Administrative This offence should normally be dealt with using Administrative

Action Action under AGAI 67.
Mitigating • Spiked drinks.

Factors • First offence.
• No disturbance/placid behaviour.
• Contained in barracks.
Aggravating • Operational environment.

Factors • Breaching an alcohol restriction rule.
• On duty.
• Repeat offender.
• In the public eye.
• Aggressive behaviour.
• Failing to respond to warnings.
• SNCO or above.
3-A-15
Common High (6%) - 1 - 7 Days Detention
Punishments Medium(35%) - Fine Band B/C
Low (40%)- RPs
Sentencing This offence, whilst it is fairly straightforward to decide guilt or

Guidance innocence, potentially encompasses a wide range of circumstances.
Judging the level of seriousness and the degree of mitigation or
aggravation can be difficult. If unsure how their case stands on the
spectrum of culpability Commanders are encouraged to discuss the
matter with G1 or legal staff.
3-A-16
Sect 43A(a) FIGHTING CONTRARY TO SECTION 43A(a) OF THE ARMY ACT
1955
What has to be • That the accused fought with another.

proved • That his behaviour was without reasonable excuse
Special Points To • Giving the word its ordinary dictionary meaning, fights means that
Note About a person takes part in a violent contention or struggle. It is a
Charging question of fact whether the actions of an accused amount to
fighting. If an accused strikes another person and that other person
does not retaliate, there will have been no "fight". Such an accused
may, however, have committed another offence, e.g., common
assault under s. 70 or using violence to a superior officer under s.
33. Legal advice should be sought in deciding an appropriate
charge.
• Self-defence is a defence to this charge. See also AA55 Chap VI
Paras 11 - 18.
• Provocation is a mitigation it is not a reasonable excuse.
• Where a soldier fights with a civilian legal advice should be
sought before charging.
• If soldiers are from different units seek legal advice to assure
parity of dealing.
Administrative This offence may be dealt with by using administrative Action under
Action AGAI 67.
Mitigating • No injuries.
Factors • Incident not serious.
• Participants the same rank.
• Provocation
Aggravating • Alcohol.
Factors • Protracted fight.
• In front of subordinates.
• In public view.
• Multiple fighting.
Common High(2%) - 1 - 7 Days Detention

Low (28%)- RPs
Sentencing The level of award depends entirely on the level of mitigation or

Guidance aggravation. Only a small proportion 7% of these offences attract
awards of detention.
3-A-17
Sect 43A(b) USING THREATENING, ABUSIVE, INSULTING OR
PROVOCATIVE WORDS/BEHAVIOUR LIKELY TO CAUSE A
DISTURBANCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 43A(b) OF THE ARMY
ACT 1955
What has to be • That the proscribed behaviour took place.

proved • That this behaviour was likely to cause a disturbance.
Special Points To • If threatening etc., words were used and can be proved, the
Note About charge should be one of using threatening etc., words, and evidence
Charging of the accused's behaviour will be admissible on such a charge. If
the accused used threatening etc., behaviour but either threatening
etc., words were not used, or the words used were indistinguishable,
he should be charged with using threatening etc., behaviour only.
• An accused should not be charged in one charge with using
threatening etc., words or behaviour because such a charge may be
bad for dubiety (i.e. uncertainty). Nor should he be charged in one
charge with using threatening etc., words and behaviour because
such a charge may be bad for duplicity (i.e., more than one offence
alleged in one charge).
Administrative This offence may be dealt with by using administrative Action under
Action AGAI 67.
Mitigating • Remarks not intended to be heard.

Factors
Aggravating • Attempting to cause a disturbance based on factors of race,
Factors religion, gender or sexual orientation would be offences against s70.
• Deliberate attempt to foment violence
• Drunkenness. [Consider charging with drunkenness (s43(1)]

Low (33%)- RPs
Sentencing Both the language/behaviour used and the context in which it is used
Guidance will give an indication of what level of seriousness the Commander
should attach to the offence.
3-A-18
44(1)(a) or WILFULLY DAMAGING* / CAUSING LOSS OF** (BY WILFUL
44(1)(b) or NEGLECT CAUSING DAMAGE TO */ LOSS OF ) PROPERTY
44(1)(b) or CONTRARY TO SECTION 44(1*/2*)(a*/b*) OF THE ARMY ACT
44(1)b) 1955
*Delete as appropriate
What has to be • That the property was public or service property or property
proved owned by a service person.
• That the property was damaged/lost
• That the damage/loss was caused wilfully or by wilful neglect.
Special Points To • Public property is service property or property belonging to a
Note About person subject to military law, as the case may be.
Charging • Captured enemy property becomes public property.
• Kit issued free to a soldier remains public property
after issue.
• Rations issued to a soldier are public property and do
not cease to be such until they have been consumed.
• Wilfully, wilful, i.e. deliberately, deliberate. The expression "wilful
neglect" implies an intention to act or omit to act in a way which the
person charged knows, or ought, if he is not recklessly careless, to
have known will amount to a breach of duty,
Administrative This offence should normally be dealt with using Administrative

Action Action under AGAI 67. If the offence is dealt with administratively
then stoppages cannot be ordered.
Mitigating • Operational situation which reduces the opportunity to exercise

Factors usual care.
• Trivial consequences.
• One off lapse.
Aggravating • Deliberate wilfulness with the intention of causing loss or

Factors damage.
• Damage or loss caused endangers others
• Actual severe consequences
• Gross negligence i.e. below that expected of a person of the
accused’s rank and experience.

Low (28%)- RPs
Sentencing An important task of the sentencer is to focus on the negligence
Guidance itself. The consequences of the negligence - great or small -
clearly provide some indication of the offence seriousness and the
likelihood that harm would flow from the negligence. It is possible for
gross negligence could result in minor damage or major damage
3-A-19
from a minor omission. The proper approach is to take an average
rating of the accused’s age rank and experience and consider what
he should have realised was likely to happen as a result of his act or
omission.
3-A-20
Section 44(2)(a) BY NEGLIGENCE CAUSING DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
What has to be • That the property was public property.

proved • That the property was damaged
• That the damage was caused by neglect.
Special Points To • Negligence consists of a failure to discharge in a proper manner
Note About a duty which is imposed upon the accused or which he undertakes.
Charging To be punishable such conduct must be blameworthy and deserving
of punishment. An error of judgement involving no lack of zeal, no
carelessness or no intentional failure to take the proper action
should not be made the subject of a charge under this s.
Administrative This is an offence which may be dealt with administratively using
Action AGAI 67
Mitigating • Operational situation which reduces the opportunity to exercise
Factors usual care.
• Trivial consequences.
• One off lapse
Aggravating • Deliberate wilfulness with the intention of causing loss or
Factors damage.
• Damage or loss caused endangers others
• Actual severe consequences
• Gross negligence i.e. below that expected of a person of the
accused’s rank and experience.
Common High(20%) - 1-7 days Detention
Punishments Medium(12%) - Fine Band A
Low (28%)- RPs
Sentencing • The degree of blameworthiness depends upon the nature of the

Guidance duty imposed upon the accused, or undertaken by him, and the
circumstances surrounding his failure to discharge it in a proper
manner. Thus, a duty to take a very high degree of care is rightly
imposed upon a person who is in charge of an armoured vehicle or
who is handling explosives or highly inflammable material because
of the possible danger to life. In such circumstances a comparatively
trivial act or omission may amount to conduct so blameworthy as to
justify the accused being severely punished. On the other hand, in a
case in which the same high degree of care is not required of the
accused, the same act or omission may not amount to blameworthy
conduct at all. In every case, what has to be considered is whether,
having regard to all the circumstances of the case as they existed at
the time, the conduct proved is so blameworthy as to be deserving of
punishment.
• Where a specific duty is laid upon an accused, failure to perform
or negligence in the performance of that duty should normally be
charged under s. 29A.
3-A-21
3-A-22
Sect 45 MISAPPLYING PUBLIC OR SERVICE PROPERTY CONTRARY TO
SECTION 45 OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • That the property was public property.
proved • That the property was either wastefully or improperly used.
Special Points To • The offences created by this s. cover the misuse of public or
Note About Service property where the accused has acted improperly but not
Charging necessarily dishonestly. Where the accused's intention appears to
have been dishonest, consideration should be given to a charge of
theft or offences against the Fraud Act 2006, as appropriate. It is not
necessarily in a charge under this s. that the accused or any other
person should have benefited from the misapplication or waste.
• This charge should not be used to bring a deliberate fraud within
the powers of a commanding officer. Any intention to permanently
deprive the service of property should not be charged under this
section. If in doubt legal advice should be taken.
Administrative This offence should not normally be dealt with using administrative
Action action.
Mitigating • No “advantage” to the accused.

Factors • No intent to deceive.
• One off offence.
• Consequence of misapplication slight.
Aggravating • Planned to gain advantage.

Factors • Planned to deceive.
• Pattern of falsification.
• Abuse of trust.
Common High(13%) - 1-7 days Detention

Low (16%)- Admonished
Sentencing Historically the more serious misapplications of property or services

Guidance tended to be charged under other sections leaving this section
dealing with relatively minor matters. Commanders, having taken
advice and who are confident they are using this section
appropriately may find themselves sentencing beyond the limits of
the historical data.
3-A-23
Sect 46 (1)(a) • DAMAGING/LOSING HIS EQUIPMENT CONTRARY TO
SECTION 46(1)(a) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • That the equipment was issued to the accused.

proved • That the accused disposed of the equipment
or
• That the accused did not take reasonable steps to prevent its
loss.
Special Points To • It is for the Commander to decide upon the evidence as a whole
Note About whether he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, either that the
Charging accused did not in fact take steps to safeguard the equipment, or
that if he did so, the precautions which he took did not amount to the
reasonable steps for the preservation of the property for which the
situation called.
Administrative Losing is a charge which ought normally to be dealt with

Action administratively under AGAI 67 except where another related
charge, such as Absence, is being dealt with. Damaging is more
likely to be dealt with using a charge under the Army Act. Loss of a
weapon should always be dealt with using a charge under the Army
Act.
Mitigating • Low value of equipment missing.

Factors • Some, if insufficient, level of care has been taken.
• Poor unit supervision of equipment.
• Loss reported by the soldier.
Aggravating • Loss of a weapon or ammunition.

Factors • Blatant negligence.
• Operationally important equipment.
• High value equipment.
Common High(50%) - Fine Band B

Punishments Medium(25%) - Fine Band A
Low (16%)- PUSP
Sentencing • The level of punishment requires an assessment of both the

Guidance value of the loss and the level of negligence or lack of care. When it
is considered that the punishment of stoppages should be awarded,
the value of the property lost must be stated in the particulars of the
charge and proved by evidence. The value will be that stated in the
Catalogue of Clothing and Necessaries or Priced Vocabulary of
Army Ordnance Stores less an allowance for depreciation but plus
any Departmental charges.
• Commanders should be aware that soldiers cannot be PUSP
under AGAI 67.
3-A-24
Sect 55(2) USING/OFFERING VIOLENCE TO A PERSON WHOSE DUTY IT IS
TO APPREHEND HIM OR IN WHOSE CUSTODY HE IS
CONTRARY TO SECTION 55(2) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • That the accused used or offered violence.
proved • That the accused was lawfully being arrested by or in the custody
of the other party.
Special Points To • Offers violence includes any defiant gesture or act which if
Note About completed would end in actual violence being used, but does not
Charging include insulting or impertinent gestures or acts which would not
result in violence being used. A soldier who shakes his fist, or even
draws a bayonet or who in any other way makes a show of violence
against a superior is not guilty of offering violence if he was behind
bars or at such a distance that it was at the time impossible for him
to strike or throw anything at the superior. On the other hand
throwing a missile would be "using violence" if it hit a superior or
"offering violence" if it missed him. Pointing a loaded firearm at a
superior who is within range would be "offering violence".
• If serious injuries are sustained the Commander should consider
charges of Aggravated or Grievous Bodily Harm.
• For the officers who have power to arrest, see ss. 74 and 178
(AA 55) and notes thereto.
Administrative This is not an offence for which AGAI 67 will normally be
Action appropriate.
Mitigating • It was not clear that the arresting officers were empowered to do
Factors so.
• In response to aggressive provocation.
Aggravating • Drunkenness.
Factors • Serious attempt to avoid custody.
• Arrest is for serious acts of violence.
• In sight of subordinates or civilians
Common High (21%) - 1 - 7 Days Detention
Low (16%)- RPs
Sentencing It is very seldom that this offence is dealt with on its own as it will
Guidance normally be tried with the offence for which the arrest was being
made in the first place. The offer or use of violence is serious in any
circumstance but particularly so when made or used in relation to
Service Police in the pursuit of their duties. Commanders should
resist the urge to treat the matter more leniently as if the threat or
use of violence were an occupational hazard for the Service Police
who actually are deserving of their protection.
3-A-25
Sect 56 ESCAPING FROM CUSTODY CONTRARY TO SECTION 56 OF
THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • That the accused escaped.

proved • That the accused had been lawfully arrested by or in the custody
of another party.
Special Points To • What constitutes an escape is a question of fact, but before a

Note About prisoner can be said to have escaped, it must be shown that he was
Charging out of the control and reach of his escort.
• If a person breaks away from an escort but does not get away he
should be charged with attempting to escape under s. 68. If a soldier
is charged under this section and the court is satisfied that though he
broke away from his escort he did not escape it would be open to the
court under s. 98(2) to find him guilty of attempting to escape.
Administrative This is not an offence that should be dealt with under AGAI 67.
Action
Mitigating • An impulsive action followed shortly by surrender.
Factors • Poor supervision of detainee.
Aggravating • Any use of violence or intimidation.

Factors • Accompanied by criminal damage.

Punishments Medium(14%) - Fine Band c
Low (14%)- RPs
Sentencing • Soldiers escaping will of course have either been in custody or

Guidance detention prior to the offence and may well still be so when the
offence is dealt with. Section118A(2) AA55 provides that "Where
any person who is serving a military sentence of detention....is found
guilty under this Act of another offence for which he is awarded a
military sentence of detention.....the officer by whom the subsequent
or further sentence is awarded may order that the sentence shall
begin to run from the expiry of the first mentioned sentence". If he
elects for the detention option his sentence runs from the end of his
current sentence. See also CSD(A)R 06 34(2)(e)(iii). The CO still
offers the detention option at the time of making the award if he
orders the sentence to run consecutively. The Appeal Period runs
from the date on which he makes his award and not from the day
when the second sentence begins to run.
• If the soldier was in custody when he committed the offence then
the escaping and the original offence have to dealt together and if
found guilty one punishment awarded for both
3-A-26
Sect 61 MAKING A FALSE ANSWER ON ENLISTMENT CONTRARY TO
What has to be • That the accused made the false answer.
proved • In what particular the answer was false.
• That the accused knew the answer to be false
Special Points To • A person who knowingly makes a false answer to a question

Note About contained in the attestation paper is not subject to military law at the
Charging time when he makes the false answer and he only becomes liable to
be charged under this section if he subsequently becomes subject to
military law and remains so subject.
• As regards the effects of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
Commanders should seek legal advice.
Administrative This offence can be dealt with either using the Army Act or AGAI 67.
Action However, administrative action is not an authority for a Commanding
Officer to discharge a soldier under QR 9.382.
Mitigating • Unknowing or minor falsehood

Factors • Immature or young soldier.
• Volunteered Information.
Aggravating • False Identity

Factors • Non-declared serious offences.
• Non-declared multiple offences.
• Not declaring previous service.
Common High(11%) - Fine Band C

Low (27%)- Fine Band A
This offence has a low prevalence and statistical indications
may be unreliable.
Sentencing • This offence is not often tried summarily and the sentencing
Guidance report is based on a small sample. The Commander must decide
first whether he intends to retain the soldier as, although not a
punishment, discharge is a serious consequence of falsehood.
• The level of punishment should obviously depend on the
seriousness of the falsehood stated or truth concealed. There is a
temptation to deal leniently with soldiers who have served
satisfactorily despite having enlisted on a false statement. The
Commander must bear in mind the underlying falsehood and deal
accordingly .
3-A-27
Sect 62(1)(a) • MAKING A FALSE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR RECORD
• MAKING A FALSE ENTRY IN AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR
Sect 62(1)(b) RECORD CONTRARY TO SECTION 62(1)(b) OF THE ARMY ACT
1955
Sect 62(1)(c) • TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OR RECORD
CONTRARY TO SECTION 62(1)(c) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • The accused has made or amended a document in which false
proved information is given.
• The document is an official one or one used for an official
purpose.
• That the accused knew the information to be false.
Special Points To • Particular care needs to be taken before dealing with this charge
Note About summarily. If by a knowing deception, a pecuniary or material
Charging advantage is obtained then other more serious charges may be
appropriate. Commanders should always take legal advice before
dealing with this offence summarily.
Administrative This offence should always be dealt with using Army Act 1955.
Action
Mitigating • No personal advantage of any kind
Factors • False entry due to poor record keeping rather than dishonesty.
Aggravating • Attempt to gain advantage thwarted by vigilant checking.

Factors • Premeditation.
• Offenders who use their employment or experience to cover false
entries.
Common High(4%) - 15 -21 Days Detention

Low (27%) - Admonished
Sentencing The offence varies in seriousness from sloppy record keeping

Guidance through deliberately false records to cover up negligence to attempts
to commit theft by deception. The Commander must first assure
himself that he should deal with the offence then decide how serious
the offence is within the range of possible circumstances.
Dishonesty must always be punished and negligence and

premeditated concealment are not necessarily less culpable than
greed and theft.
3-A-28
Sect 65(a) ILL-TREATING AN OFFICER OF INFERIOR RANK CONTRARY TO
SECTION 65(a) OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
Or
Or ILL-TREATING A SOLDIER CONTRARY TO SECTION 65(b) OF
Sect 65(b) THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • The accused ill-treated another person subject to military/service

proved law.
Special Points To • The question of what may be described as ill-treatment is one of

Note About fact for the Commander to decide, giving the words their ordinary
Charging dictionary meaning. It may include behaviour that degrades or
humiliates the victim as well as violent physical contact. The
particulars of offence must state how the victim was ill-treated, e.g.,
by striking, punching, kicking, by being locked in a cupboard or by
whatever other means. A statement of more than one such means of
ill-treatment which is part of the same transaction will not, it is
considered, be bad for duplicity.
• This offence should not be dealt with summarily if the
circumstances of any assault went further than might be dealt with
summarily under s70.
Administrative This offence should normally be dealt with using discipline powers
Action under Army Act 1955. However if a wider pattern of behaviour is
disclosed additional Administrative Action might be considered.
Mitigating • Horseplay without malice.

Factors
Aggravating • Abuse of Comd.
Factors • Accompanied by an Assault.
• Part of a pattern of abuse.
• Any Sexual or Racial motive.
Common High(10%) - RTTR

Low (15%)- Reprimand
Sentencing The fact that there are few level punishments awarded for this
Guidance offence indicates its seriousness and the fact that any but the most
minor are dealt with at Court-Martial.
3-A-29
Sect 66 DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF AN INDECENT KIND CONTRARY
TO SECTION 66 OF THE ARMY ACT 1955
What has to be • The accused carried out the conduct of an indecent or unnatural
proved kind.
Special Points To • Much of what can be charged under this Section may also be
Note About contrary to the Sexual Offences Acts 2003 and other Acts.
Charging Commanders must always seek legal advice before commencing
Summary Dealing.
• This Section may be used when the Sexual Offences Act
2003stipulates that an incident must take place in public to complete
the offence. In a Service environment an act taking place in the
public rooms of a mess or barracks may constitute an offence
against this Section even if the public have no general access.
Administrative Where an incident involves lawful activity which is considered

Action inappropriate because of Service considerations, AGAI 67 action for
misconduct might be considered. Where the activity is in itself
indecent then action under this section would be more appropriate.
Mitigating • Consensual activities not intended to be made public.

Factors • Single Incidents as opposed to a fixed pattern of behaviour.
Aggravating • Abuse of rank or position.

Factors • Bullying or coercion.
• Initiation rites.
• Use of Violence.
Common High (7%) – 1-7 Days Detention

Low (12%)- RPs
Sentencing Indecency dealt with Summarily, will always be on the lower end of a
Guidance wide spectrum of activities ranging from immature lewdness to
serious sexual offences. Commanders must ensure that
sentences are commensurate with the effect of the offence, at the
same time an ambiguous moral lead in barracks may result in a
lowering of standards of behaviour on operations.
3-A-30
Sect 66 DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF A CRUEL KIND CONTRARY TO
What has to be • The accused carried out the conduct of a cruel kind.
proved
Special Points To • Offences against animals are rather uncommon and this section
Note About is relatively rarely used.
Charging • To commit this offence it is only necessary to intend to do the act,
there is no need to prove that the accused intended cruelty to be the
result.
• Where the offence covers repeated actions or there is a high
level of deliberate cruelty Commanders should consider referring the
case to Higher Authority.
Administrative If cruelty results from inefficiency it may be appropriate to deal with

Action this offence by Administrative Action. In most cases it should be
dealt with using AA 1955 powers.
Mitigating • Unwitting omission.

Factors • Genuine ignorance of proper husbandry.
Aggravating • Deliberate cruelty.

Factors • Repeated Offences.
• Public cruelty.
• Two or more persons acting in concert.
• Soldiers whose duty involves the care of animals.
Common [Low Population]

Punishments
Sentencing There is a natural revulsion about cruelty to animals which, being

Guidance unable to protect themselves, deserve our protection.
There being insufficient data to decide on a range of sentences
Commanders will to some extent have to find their own way. A
starting point in considering sentence would be the effect of the
action; how much suffering was inflicted on the animal. Thereafter,
consideration should be given to the level of depravity to which the
perpetrator stooped. Finally, aggravating and mitigating factors may
be considered.
3-A-31
Sect 68 ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT A MILITARY OFFENCE CONTRARY
TO SECTION 68 OF THE ARMY ACT 1955 THAT IS TO SAY ……
What has to be • That the accused had the intention to commit the offence
proved attempted.
• That, had some circumstance not intervened, he would have
committed the offence.
Special Points To • An offence contrary to this s. can be dealt with summarily only if
Note About the full offence is one which can be dealt with summarily.
Charging Attempts to commit Section 70 offences cannot be charged
under this section.
• A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a military offence if,
with intent to commit the full offence, he does an act which is
more than merely preparatory to the commission of that offence.
• A person may be guilty of an attempt even though the facts are
such that the commission of the full offence is impossible.
• Commanders should take legal advice before charging this
offence.
Administrative This offence can only be dealt with using AA1955 powers
Action
Mitigating As for the full offence

Factors
Aggravating As for the full offence

Factors
Common As for the full offence
Punishments
Sentencing Sentences for attempts should in general relate to those of the

Guidance completed offence. The Commander must make a judgement
about the likely outcome, had the attempt not been frustrated. So, an
attempted assault with a weapon would be more serious than a blow
with a fist that does not connect.
3-A-32
Sect 69 CONDUCT TO THE PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND
MILITARY DISCIPLINE CONTRARY TO SECTION 69 OF THE
ARMY ACT 1955
- NEGLIGENT DISCHARGES
GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL IS THAT NEGLIGENT

DISCHARGES SHOULD BE CHARGED UNDER S SECT 29A(B) – “NEGLIGENT
PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY”, HOWEVER THE SENTENCING GUIDANCE
REMAINS THE SAME.
What is to be
• The defendant did the act (or made the omission) complained of;
proved
• He did the act intentionally or recklessly; and
• .That a round or blank was fired
Special Points To • The ability to handle personal weapons safely is a fundamental
Note About skill for all military personnel. Poor weapon handling is never to be
Charging condoned, however, there may be mitigating factors. The state of
training of the soldier is a factor in deciding how the case should be
dealt with.
• All cases which result in injury must be referred for Court Martial.
• It is good practice to have the weapon checked for malfunction in
every case and it is mandatory to do so in any case where injury is
caused.
Administrative For soldiers 5 in Phase 1 Training this should normally be dealt with
Action using Administrative Action. All other soldiers should be dealt with
using disciplinary powers under AA1955.
Mitigating • Inexperience.
Factors • Extreme Fatigue.
• Poor conditions.
• Weapon being handled as part of a soldier’s duty but on which he
had not been trained. (This may amount to a defence)
• Blank Round.
Aggravating • Horseplay or misuse of a weapon.

Factors • Where Injury results
• Large calibre or explosive round.
• In close proximity to others.
• Blatantly negligent drills.
• Tampering with a weapon which it was not his duty to handle.
• Second or subsequent offences.
5
This includes Proffessiionally Qualified Officers and Officer Cadets in Phase 1 Training.
3-A-33
Common Phase 1
Punishments High – (14%) Fine Band B
Medium – (74%) Fine Band A
Low (12%)- RPs
Phase 2
High – (57%) Fine Band B
Low (4%)- RPs
Field Army
High – (0.4%) 1 – 7 Days Detention
Medium – (84%) Fine Band B-C
Low (2%)- RPs
Sentencing The first consideration is the state of training of the soldier. The most
Guidance serious NDs, those which cause death or injury should never be dealt
with summarily. Therefore, the Commander is not normally
concerned about the effect of the offence but rather the culpability or
carelessness which caused the offence and the potential
consequences.
The award of detention is extremely unusual but not unknown, fines
being the most usual punishment.
3-A-34
CONDUCT TO THE PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND
Sect 69
ARMY ACT 1955
- POOR STANDARD OF PERSONAL EQUIPMENT OR TURNOUT
What is to be • The defendant did the act (or made the omission) complained of;
proved • He did the act intentionally or recklessly; and
• The conduct was objectively prejudicial to good order and
Service discipline (the assessment being a matter of fact for the
CO).
Special Points To • It is the duty of all ranks to uphold the standards and good
Note About reputation of the Army. Any conduct therefore which amounts to a
Charging failure in that duty by an individual may well adversely affect military
discipline although it has no direct bearing on the discipline of the
unit to which the accused belongs
• It is now Army policy to make the SLA of adult soldiers more of a
personal space. Notwithstanding that, soldiers must keep their
personal kit clean and in good condition and their SLA clean and
conducive to communal living, this section may be used to enforce
minimum standards.
Administrative Most offences of this type should be dealt with administratively,

Action however some repeat or very serious offences may justify being
charged under this section
Factors • Unexpected additional duties.
• Uncharacteristic lapse.
• Other operational demands.
Aggravating • Repeat offences.

Factors • Failure to respond to warnings.
• NCOs who ought to give example.
Common High – (39%) Fine Band B

Punishments
Low (34%)- RPs
Sentencing Commanders using summary powers to deal with this failing will
Guidance have decided that administrative sanctions are not appropriate in the
circumstances.
3-A-35
Sect 69
ARMY ACT 1955
- DRIVING OFFENCES
• The defendant did the act (or made the omission) complained of;
• He did the act intentionally or recklessly; and
CO).
Special Points To • Commanders should be particularly careful to ensure that they
Note About have jurisdiction to deal with any offences in which there is a civilian
Charging interest.
• It is possible to deal summarily with driving offences either using
this section or Sect 70 using offences listed in Schedule 2 of
CSD(A)R06. As a general rule any offence which involves a non
MOD person, vehicle or other property should be charged under
Sect 70. Offences in which only MOD personnel, vehicles or
property should be charged under this Sect. If in doubt commanders
should seek legal advice.
• Where damage has occurred and the Commander intends to
place the accused under stoppages, if found guilty, the cost of the
damage must be included in the body of the charge and must be
proved by evidence.
• If personal injury has occurred the offence should be dealt with at
Court-Martial
• Not every traffic accident need result in a charge, only if the
investigation finds some carelessness, negligence or recklessness.
Cases which rely solely on self incrimination, a statement by the
driver or an FMT3 should not proceed.
Administrative Those driving offences which involve minor carelessness may be
Action dealt with administratively under AGAI 67, however, stoppages of
pay to make recompense for damages may only be ordered after
dealings under the Army Act.
Factors • Difficult driving conditions.
• Uncharacteristic lapse.
• Lack of training on the type of vehicle.
Aggravating • Unauthorised to drive the vehicle.

Factors • Alcohol involved.
• Excess speed involved.
3-A-36
Common High –(2%) Detention 1-7 days
Medium – (30%) Fine Band B
Punishments
Low (55%)- RPs
Sentencing Driving offences have a wide variation in culpability and effect. The
Guidance recorded cases resulting in detention were charged with other
offences.
The difficulty for the Commander is to balance culpability against

effect. A very reckless act may with good luck have little ill effect
whereas a momentary carelessness could have grave
consequences. The offence is primarily concerned with negligence
and therefore it is the negligence or recklessness which should be
the primary consideration, albeit the Commander will consider how
the consequence should effect the sentence.
3-A-37
Sect 69
ARMY ACT 1955
- DISHONESTY AND FALSEHOOD (INCLUDING IMPROPER
POSSESION)
What needs to • The defendant did the act (or made the omission) complained of;
be proved • He did the act intentionally or recklessly; and
panel).
• There was an element of intended dishonesty.
Special Points To • A wide range of offences are charged under this section and
Note About commanders should be careful that offences are not mis-charged.
Charging Offences of theft, where there is evidence that the accused has
appropriated property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the owner of it, should be charged under Sect
70. Where the accused is found in possession of property belonging
to another but there is some doubt as to how he came into
possession of it or his intention to permanently deprive the owner of
the property, then improper possession under this section may be
charged.
• Offences of fraud, or other kinds of theft not covered in Schedule
2 of CSD(A)R 06, must be referred to the HA with a view to Court
Martial. Commanders in doubt about which charge to use should
seek ALS advice.
• Theft, possession and use of credit/bank cards raise complex
issues which should be referred for ALS advice before charging.
• Tendering cheques without funds is sometimes charged under
this section. Except where a soldier cashes a cheque fully aware of
his financial situation it is more appropriate to deal with these
occasions using AGAI 67.
Dishonesty involving property or money should normally be dealt

Administrative
with using the AA 55. Bouncing cheques and matters of a minor
Action
nature may be dealt with administratively.
Mitigating • Finding equipment and not taking steps to ascertain its owner.
Factors • First Offence
• Low value item.
Aggravating • Repeat Offence.

Factors • Possession of named property.
3-A-38
High – (4%) 1-14 Days Detention
Common
Punishments Low (30%)- RPs
Sentencing In this case the key to correct sentencing is appropriate charging.

Guidance By correctly charging theft where it has occurred and dealing
administratively with minor falsehoods the s can be used in the main
to deal with improper possession.
3-A-39
COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE CONTRARY TO SECTION 70
Sect 70
OF THE ARMY ACT 1955 THAT IS TO SAY COMMON ASSAULT
/BATTERY CONTRARY TO SECTION 39 OF THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ACT 1988
What is to be • See MML Chap VII paragraphs 6 and 7

proved
Special Points To • ALS advice should be taken before charging any Sect 70
Note About offence.
Charging • Where actual bodily harm takes place the offence should be
referred to the HA.
• The list of civil offences with which a Commander can deal
summarily is found in Schedule 2 of CSD(A) R 2000.
It is not normally appropriate to deal with a Sect 70 type offence

Administrative
using AGAI 67 although Administrative action may be taken as a
Action
consequence of failings highlighted by summary dealing.
Factors • Single Blow.
• Remorse.
• No Contact.
Aggravating • Group Action.

Factors • Premeditation.
• Battery.
• Use of a Weapon.
• Abuse of authority or position
• Civilian Involvement
High – (16%) 1-14 Days Detention

Common
Civilian Courts 6 - Fine 1.5 times the net weekly wage
Sentencing Of all people soldiers are expected to be self-controlled in the use of

Guidance physical force. Assaults in barracks adversely affect unit cohesion
and outside barracks damage Army reputation.
6
Refers to the Magistrates “Starting Point” before considering aggravation or mitigation.
3-A-40
Sect 70
OF THE ARMY ACT 1955 THAT IS TO SAY THEFT CONTRARY
TO SECTION 1(1) OF THE THEFT ACT 1968
What is to be • See MML Chap VII paragraph 27

proved
Note About offence.
Charging
• Complex dishonesty offences including robbery, burglary and
deception should be referred to HA .
Administrative It is not normally appropriate to deal with a Sect 70 type offence

Action using AGAI 67, although Administrative action may be taken as a
Mitigating • Impulsive action

Factors • Low Value
• Remorse
Aggravating • Planned
Factors • Acting in concert with others
• High Value
• Related Damage
• Pattern of Behaviour
Common High – (17%) 8-14 Days Detention

Civilian Courts 7 - 1.5 times net weekly wage
Sentencing Theft within a military unit has a serious effect on unit cohesion and
Guidance Commanders will wish to deal with it accordingly.
The main elements of deducing the seriousness of the offence are

the value of the item stolen and the level of dishonesty practised .
7
3-A-41
Sect 70
OF THE ARMY ACT 1955 THAT IS TO SAY UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED DRUG CONTRARY TO
SECTION 5(2) OF THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971
What is to be • See MML Chap VII paragraph 53B

proved
Note About offence.
Charging
• Commanders should refer to AGAI Vol 2 Chap 63.
Action using AGAI 67 although Administrative action may be taken as a
Mitigating • Small amount

Factors • Class C Drugs
Aggravating • Large Amounts

Factors • Acting with others
Common High – (47%) Over 56 Days Detention

Medium – (17%) Fine Band B-C
Punishments
Low (3%)- RTTR
Civilian Courts 8 - 1 times net weekly wage
Sentencing Most commanders well understand the seriousness of the use of
Guidance drugs and its inconsistency with service in the Armed Forces. From
time to time apparently minor punishments are awarded masking the
fact that administrative action is also taken to discharge the
offenders. Commanders seeking only to rid themselves of what they
may consider to be undesirable elements at the earliest opportunity,
miss the deterrent effect on others who see offenders face long
periods of detention.
8
3-A-42
Sect 70
OF THE ARMY ACT 1955 THAT IS TO SAY [DESTROYING]
[DAMAGING] PROPERTY CONTRARY TO SECTION 1(1) OF THE
CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971
proved
Note About offence.
Charging
• Damage to public property, service property or property
belonging to a person subject to military law should be charged
under Sect 44 and not 70.
• Commanders dealing with cases of damage by fire must seek
ALS advice.
• Given that this section should only be used for damage of
property belonging to members of the public Commanders should
give careful consideration before dealing summarily given that they
have limited powers to order stoppages for compensation.
Mitigating • Impulsive action

Factors • Minor damage
• Provocation
• Remorse
Aggravating • Deliberate
Factors • Planned
• Vulnerable victim
• Acting with others
Punishments
Low (12%)- RP
Civilian Courts 9 - 1.5 times net weekly wage
Sentencing Not only should the Commander consider the value of the property
Guidance damaged but also the reason why the accused damaged it and what
the effect (intentional or otherwise) was on the victim.
9
3-A-43
Sect 70
OF THE ARMY ACT 1955 THAT IS TO SAY [DRIVING]
[ATTEMPTING TO DRIVE] A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH [BLOOD
ALCOHOL] [URINE ALCOHOL] [BREATH ALCOHOL]
CONCENTRATION ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT CONTRARY
TO SECTION 5(1)(a) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988

proved
Note About offence.
Charging
•
Mitigating • Emergency
Factors • Moving a Vehicle a short distance
• Spiked drinks
• Believing he had slept off previous night’s alcohol
Aggravating • Caused damage or injury.
Factors • Driving on duty or operations
• Ability to drive seriously impaired.
• Vocational driver
Medium – (48%) Fine Band C
Punishments
Low (10%)- RTTR
UK Civilian Courts – See Table below 10
Sentencing There should be no doubt in the Commanders mind that driving
Guidance permits (BFG and FMT 600) should be removed for an appropriate
period bearing in mind the breath/blood/urine limits operating locally.
The Commander should take into consideration any time, pre trial, in
which permits have been revoked. Rehabilitative driving courses
and tests may be considered and ordered at the end of the removal.
Breath Blood Urine Disqualify Guideline

36-55 80-125 107-170 12 Months 1 Week Fine
56-70 126-160 171-214 18 Months 1.5 Weeks
71-85 161-195 215-260 24 Months 1.5 Weeks
10
Civil Courts have a wide range of sanctions available and can disqualify from driving as
opposed to simply withdrawing a permit to drive. A court Martial has no power to disqualify a
driver.
3-A-44
86-100 196-229 261-308 24 Months Consider Community
Penalty
101-115 230-264 309-354 30 Months
116-130 265-300 355-400 30 Months Consider Custody
131+ 301+ 401+ 36 Months
3-A-45
Sect 70
OF THE ARMY ACT 1955 THAT IS TO SAY DRIVING [WITHOUT
DUE CARE AND ATTENTION] CONTRARY TO SECTION 3 OF
THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988
Note About offence.
Charging
• This offence cannot take place in a Private Place. Guidance as to
what constitutes a Road or Public place should be sought from ALS
before charging.
Mitigating • Other operational imperatives

Factors • Sudden Change in weather conditions
• Minor risk
• Momentary Lapse
• Minor Damage
Aggravating • Excess speed.
Factors • Using a mobile phone
• Serious Risk
• Vocational Driver
Common High – (10%) Fine Band C
Punishments
Low (33%)- RP
Civilian Courts 11 - 1 times net weekly wage (Plus a mandatory
endorsement of 3-9 points)
Sentencing See the notes on Driving Offences under Sect 69.
Guidance
11
3-A-46
ANNEX B TO
CHAPTER 3 OF THE
TABLE OF COMMON PUNISHMENTS
29(a) Sleeping
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
5 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0
1.5% 0.0% 0.9% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
20 81 80 53
6.0% 24.4% 24.1% 16.0%
Minor
86
25.9%
29(a) Leaving
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
8 16 5 0
6.7% 13.3% 4.2% 0.0%
Minor
88
73.3%
29(b) Using Force

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
27 109 45 28
12.7% 51.2% 21.1% 13.1%
Minor
3
1.4%
29A(a) Failed to
Attend
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
86 35 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
3.2% 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
512 1040 88 10
19.1% 38.7% 3.3% 0.4%
Minor
910
33.9%
3-B-1
29A(b) Neglectfully Performed
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
49 113 47 7
18.1% 41.9% 17.4% 2.6%
Minor
50
18.5%
33(1)(a) Using Violence

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
9 5 4 4 0 0 0 1 0
10.8% 6.0% 4.8% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
5 26 8 2
6.0% 31.3% 9.6% 2.4%
Minor
19
22.9%
33(1)(b) Insubordinate Language

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
13 14 5 6 1 1 0 0 0
4.7% 5.1% 1.8% 2.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
21 100 31 2
7.6% 36.1% 11.2% 0.7%
Minor
83
30.0%
34 Disobeying a Lawful Command

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
22 22 4 4 0 0 0 0 0
4.1% 4.1% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
100 100 46 2
18.5% 18.5% 8.5% 0.4%
Minor
240
44.4%
36(1) Disobedience to Standing Orders

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
74 40 20 5 1 0 1 0 2
5.1% 2.7% 1.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Fine A B C D
100 100 100 38
6.9% 6.9% 6.9% 2.6%
Minor
974
66.9%
3-B-2
38(1) Absence Less than 8 days
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
241 43 8 6 0 2 0 0 0
29.1% 5.2% 1.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
45 264 31 4
5.4% 31.9% 3.7% 0.5%
Minor
184
22.2%
38(1) Absence 8 - 14 Days

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
136 202 35 16 0 0 1 0 0
19.9% 29.5% 5.1% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
2 111 59 2
0.3% 16.2% 8.6% 0.3%
Minor
121
17.7%

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
40 107 66 25 2 1 1 1 0
12.0% 32.0% 19.8% 7.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
0 24 21 6
0.0% 7.2% 6.3% 1.8%
Minor
40
4.0%

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
18 41 36 68 1 1 1 0 0
7.9% 18.1% 15.9% 30.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
0 18 11 5
0.0% 7.9% 4.8% 2.2%
Minor
27
11.9%
38(1) Absence 28 Days- 100 Days

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
15 61 96 160 46 70 60 55 94
1.9% 7.6% 12.0% 20.0% 5.8% 8.8% 7.5% 6.9% 11.8%
Fine A B C D
1 25 34 20
0.1% 3.1% 4.3% 2.5%
Minor
63
7.9%
3-B-3
38(1) Absence >100 Days
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
7 9 8 19 8 19 25 40 63
3.0% 3.8% 3.4% 8.1% 3.4% 8.1% 10.6% 16.9% 26.7%
Fine A B C D
1 3 10 7
0.4% 1.3% 4.2% 3.0%
Minor
17
7.2%
42(1)(a) Malingering
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
1 2 1 0
20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0%
Minor
1
20.0%
43(1) Drunkenness
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
37 32 1 0 0 0 0 1 2
6.5% 5.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4%
Fine A B C D
52 100 100 12
9.2% 17.7% 17.7% 2.1%
Minor
229
40.5%
43A(a) Fighting
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
5 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
2.3% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
20 100 27 1
9.0% 45.2% 12.2% 0.5%
Minor
63
28.5%
43A(b) Threatening Language/Behaviour

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
2 3 6 3 0 1 0 0 0
1.9% 2.9% 5.8% 2.9% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
11 37 4 2
10.7% 35.9% 3.9% 1.9%
Minor
34
33.0%
3-B-4
44(1)(a) Wilful Damage/Loss
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
24 38 10 0
18.9% 29.9% 7.9% 0.0%
Minor
54
42.5%
44(1)(b) Negligent Damage/Loss

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
5 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0
20.0% 0.0% 12.0% 16.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
3 2 1 0
12.0% 8.0% 4.0% 0.0%
Minor
7
28.0%
45 Misapplying Property
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
10 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 1
13.5% 1.4% 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4%
Fine A B C D
4 13 2 28
5.4% 17.6% 2.7% 37.8%
Minor
8
10.8%
46(1)(a) Losing Equipment

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
11 22 4 0
25.0% 50.0% 9.1% 0.0%
Minor
7
15.9%
55 Using Violence to an Arresting Officer

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
1 6 4 1
5.3% 31.6% 21.1% 5.3%
Minor
3
15.8%
3-B-5
56 Escaping
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
1 0 1 0
14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0%
Minor
1
14.3%
61 False Statement on Enlistment

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
1 1 0 0
11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Minor
7
77.8%
62 False Document
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
3 3 4 2 0 0 8 0 0
2.6% 2.6% 3.5% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
15 38 10 0
13.2% 33.3% 8.8% 0.0%
Minor
31
27.2%
65 Ill Treating Subordinate

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0%
Fine A B C D
2 7 4 2 RTTR
10.0% 35.0% 20.0% 10.0% 2
Minor 10%
3
15.0%
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
2 7 4 2
9.1% 31.8% 18.2% 9.1%
Minor
2
10
66 Disgraceful Conduct
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
3-B-6
2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
7.7% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8%
Fine A B C D
2 11 2 2
7.7% 42.3% 7.7% 7.7%
Minor
3
11.5%
68 Attempts
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
5 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0
1.6% 0.0% 1.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
27 109 45 28
8.7% 35.3% 14.6% 9.1%
Minor
88
28.5%
69 Conduct Prejudicial - ND - Phase 1 Trg

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
420 79 3 0
73.8% 13.9% 0.5% 0.0%
Minor
67
11.8%
69 Conduct Prejudicial - ND - Phase 2 Trg

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
194 295 3 0
38.0% 57.7% 0.6% 0.0%
Minor
19
3.7%
69 ND Field Army
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
40 202 200 28
8.3% 41.7% 41.3% 5.8%
Minor
12
2.5%
69 Poor Kit/Turnout
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3-B-7
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
15 24 2 0
24.2% 38.7% 3.2% 0.0%
Minor
21
33.9%
3-B-8
69 Driving Offences
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
2 15 3 0
4.1% 30.6% 6.1% 0.0%
Minor
27
55.1%
69 Dishonesty - Falsehood/Cheques
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
2.5% 1.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
36 112 9 0
14.9% 46.5% 3.7% 0.0%
Minor
72
29.9%
70 Assault
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
43 43 20 21 9 8 1 3 13
8.2% 8.2% 3.8% 4.0% 1.7% 1.5% 0.2% 0.6% 2.5%
Fine A B C D
16 143 97 10
3.0% 27.2% 18.4% 1.9%
Minor
99
18.8%
70 Theft
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
16 17 5 15 1 3 0 0 0
9.1% 9.7% 2.8% 8.5% 0.6% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
10 56 19 1
5.7% 31.8% 10.8% 0.6%
Minor
33
18.8%
70 Drugs
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 10
0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 8.3% 0.0% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 41.7%
Fine A B C D
0 2 2 1
0.0% 8.3% 8.3% 4.2%
Minor
3
12.5%
3-B-9
70 Damage
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.2% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
14 37 9 0
12.4% 32.7% 8.0% 0.0%
Minor
42
37.2%
70 Drink Driving
Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
0 4 9 2
0.0% 21.1% 47.4% 10.5%
Minor
2
10.5%
70 Driving W/O Due Care

Det 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 57-60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fine A B C D
9 13 4 0
22.0% 31.7% 9.8% 0.0%
Minor
15
36.6%
3-B-10
CHAPTER 4
DISPOSAL OF THE RECORD OF SUMMARY DEALING (RSD) AFTER

FINDING
Within two working days a completed Unit Summary Dealing Return for all
proven cases is to be sent by the unit to the Post Trials Section (PTS) of PS
2(Army) in accordance with Annex F to AGAI 62. Each case is then recorded
on to the MOD Summary Dealing Database, and is updated at every stage of
its progress.
The full RSD is to be forwarded to PTS after the 14 day appeal period has
elapsed and not later than 30 days after the date of the Summary Dealing. It
is to include the AF A6200 series of forms, the completed charge report AF
B252, all evidence, Conduct Sheets, mitigation and statements by the
Accused.
The only exception to the above process will be in the event of the soldier or a
Reviewing Authority raising an appeal. The Military Court Service (Summary
Appeal Court) processes all appeals, keeping PTS informed, and issues a
Unit Instruction and court details. In these circumstances the RSD is to be
sent to the relevant APA which will act as the Respondent in court, on behalf
of the CO.
Every Unit Return and RSD is reviewed by the PTS in accordance with Army
Act Section 115 and AGAI 62. An application to seek leave to appeal on
behalf of the soldier on legal or technical grounds may then be submitted to
the Office of the Judge Advocate General. Once that is granted, the appeal
belongs to the soldier. Should leave to appeal be refused, the Judge
Advocate has to give reasons for that refusal and the appeal ceases to exist.
All appeals are reviewed by the PTS.
Once review is completed, and unless appealed, RSDs are forwarded to the
MOD archives and retained for 7 years, after which they are destroyed.
Appeal cases are archived by the relevant APA. An RSD may be recalled,
only by PTS, and at any time during its life.
4-1

Commanders Guide To Sentencing PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Commanders Guide To Sentencing PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ARMY CODE No 64183

Commander’s Guide to Sentencing

Edition 00-4 (Nov 2007)

Detailed Guidance on Specific Charges:

Table of Awards 3-B-1 to 8

SCHEDULE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY

Purpose of the Guide. The selection of a just and appropriate punishment

Advice and Guidance. The powers of punishment at Summary Dealing are

1. The Commander’s first decision in considering purely professional misconduct is to

2. In dealing with charges summarily, and particularly in awarding summary

4. In making an assessment of the seriousness of an offence, the Commander should

a. The nature of the offence and its consequences;

AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION

(1) Vulnerability of the victim.

(2) Breach of Trust (dishonesty offences, exploitation of subordinates).

(4) Gratuitous Offending (especially violence).

(5) Group Offending.

(6) Racially Motivated Offending.

(7) Offending whilst awaiting disciplinary action having been charged on

(8) A Commander may consider a higher level of punishment than he

(9) If an offence has become widespread or especially deserving of

(1) Youth and inexperience.

(4) Circumstances not amounting to a defence but relevant to

(5) Substantial co-operation with investigators.

(6) Lapse of time since the commission of the offence.

(8) Time spent in custody awaiting trial. (A formula for calculating

(9) Mitigating factors specific to the offence.

(10) Expressions of remorse or a readiness to admit to wrongdoing.

(11) Admission of guilt; see sub paragraph d.

(1) The importance of maintaining good order and military discipline in

(2) The accused’s financial situation may be considered. (An individual

6. Consistency in awarding punishments is important because it strengthens

THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF PUNISHMENT

7. Commanders have a wide and flexible range of disciplinary powers available to

a. Restriction of Privileges(RPs). The withdrawal of privileges enjoyed by

b. Extra Guards. Up to 3 extra guard duties may be awarded as a summary

c. Admonition. A Commander may admonish a soldier for his conduct. This

11. A Reprimand or Severe Reprimand is often awarded as a punishment for an

13. Fines are always to be expressed as an amount in Pounds Sterling, not as

COMPENSATION AND RESTITUTION

OTHER OFFICERS WITH DISCIPLINARY POWERS

ARMY PERSONNEL SERVING IN JOINT SERVICE UNITS

TRANSITION TO THE ARMED FORCES ACT

CREDIT FOR TIME SPENT IN CUSTODY

1. When a summary punishment of detention is awarded, credit must be given for

2. Awards of detention automatically attract remission of 1/3 of the total sentence

4. Deductions of fractions of days are to be rounded up in favour of the soldier.

5. The Commanding Officer considers that 60 days detention is the appropriate

6. Soldier A. The Commanding Officer will announce a sentence of “60 days

EXAMPLE 2: SPECIAL CASE

8. The Commanding Officer considers that 28 days detention is the appropriate

9. Soldier C. The Commanding Officer will announce an award of “28 days

10. Soldier D. In these circumstances, in order to ensure fairness, the Commanding

11. A ready reckoner table is at Appendix 1.

PRE TRIAL CUSTODY CALCULATOR

Punishment Severity (from lightest to heaviest, top to bottom)

DETAILED GUIDANCE ON CHARGING

Sect 29(a) SLEEPING WHEN ON GUARD DUTY CONTRARY TO SECTION

What needs to • The accused must know that he was on guard.

Mitigating • Prolonged period of duty compounded by previous duty

Aggravating • Operational Environment

Common • High (2%) – 1-7Days Detention

The circumstances and the possible, or likely, consequences will