I agree with Hedgehog. It doesn't make the DF look good nor does it give me confidence the fairness and impartiality of the court martial process.
This case was a relatively minor employment issue and yet it warrented a general court martial to hear the case. This is due (as far as I know) to the rank of the individuals involved. While traditionaly it was deemed appropriate for offences surrounding people of a certain rank to be dealt with at certain levels, the DF should have taken an opportunity when overhauling the discipline process to take into consideration the seriousness of the offence when deciding at what level the issue should have been addressed. To the general public this is a storm in tea cup and appears to be a waste of money (and court time), this reflects the comments I have been receiving at work about this case.
As regards the fairness and impartiality of the court. A judge should only issue a sentance based on the facts before him. It appears to me that when handing down the third highest sentance available for this type of offence the judge may have taken into consideration other pending more serious cases against this individual (this has been intimated more than once on this forum), if that is so then Col McCourt has made a serious error of judgement. If the DF want to keep some things quite then it needs to create a different forum for dealing with these issues.
By the way I have heard anectdotadly that Col McCourt's previous judgements have exhibited fairness and incitefullness.
This case was a relatively minor employment issue and yet it warrented a general court martial to hear the case. This is due (as far as I know) to the rank of the individuals involved. While traditionaly it was deemed appropriate for offences surrounding people of a certain rank to be dealt with at certain levels, the DF should have taken an opportunity when overhauling the discipline process to take into consideration the seriousness of the offence when deciding at what level the issue should have been addressed. To the general public this is a storm in tea cup and appears to be a waste of money (and court time), this reflects the comments I have been receiving at work about this case.
As regards the fairness and impartiality of the court. A judge should only issue a sentance based on the facts before him. It appears to me that when handing down the third highest sentance available for this type of offence the judge may have taken into consideration other pending more serious cases against this individual (this has been intimated more than once on this forum), if that is so then Col McCourt has made a serious error of judgement. If the DF want to keep some things quite then it needs to create a different forum for dealing with these issues.
By the way I have heard anectdotadly that Col McCourt's previous judgements have exhibited fairness and incitefullness.
Comment