The decision in Rex v. Hayes may be of interest to those serving in the UK, and to legal advisors. 1. The Defendant has been charged with an offence of causing death by careless driving on the 26th of August 2022. The NATO SOFA gives the visiting state primary [] to jurisdiction as regards offences ‘arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty’ lies with the sending state[,] The visiting state must file an appropriate official duty certificate, which ensued here from the Air Force. The prosecution challenged the certificate given on behalf of Hayes. The judge notes the Air Force was given the opportunity to participate in the hearing but did not do so--I wonder why. From my overseas assignments I learned that it was policy to do everything possible to get U.S. jurisdiction, even where the SOFA said primary jurisdiction is with the host nation. [A] certificate issued by or on behalf of the appropriate authority of the sending country, stating that the alleged offence, if committed by him, arose out of and in the course of his duty as a member of that force or component, as the case may be, shall in any such proceedings as aforesaid be sufficient evidence of that fact unless the contrary is proved. Oh, what did the judge decide about jurisdiction. Well, examining the evidence the judge holds that the certificate is rebutted. Driving home from work in PT gear, coming from PT was not in the course of official duty, thus Hayes is subject to UK prosecution. We thank Brigadier (Ret) Paphiti at Aspals for bringing this case to our attention.
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
1/20/2023 11:10:32
"The judge notes the Air Force was given the opportunity to participate in the hearing but did not do so--I wonder why."
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
1/20/2023 13:25:00
The Judge's opinion also notes: 1/20/2023 13:54:19
Not sure of the appellate process, but perhaps that's where USAFE or a State rep might intercede?
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
1/20/2023 15:30:22
Well, when I was stationed in Germany, the practice was that jurisdictional issues were decided first - primarily because of the NATO SOFA's "double jeopardy" provisions. I haven't looked to see if that's been changed or not.
Nathan Freeburg
1/21/2023 13:00:20
My understanding is that "maximizing military jurisdiction" is not the current policy with regard to some SOFAs/allied jurisdictions. I don't know what it is for the UK.
Alan
1/21/2023 10:51:50
A few years ago BC (which used to mean Before Christ, but now means Before Covid) there was US dependant spouse involved in auto accident that killed a UK citizen. She was whisked away to US, which refused to extradite her. A bit of a diplomatic kerfuffle ensued. I think she eventually was tried via video from US, but sentence is moot unless she returns to UK. Comments are closed.
|
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
Co-editors:
Phil Cave Brenner Fissell Links
SCOTUS CAAF -Daily Journal -2024 Ops ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA JRAP JRTP UCMJ Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.) Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.) Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.) MCM 2024 MCM 2023 MCM 2019 MCM 2016 MCM 2012 MCM 1995 UMCJ History Global Reform Army Lawyer JAG Reporter Army Crim. L. Deskbook J. App. Prac. & Pro. CAAFlog 1.0 CAAFlog 2.0 Archives
December 2024
Categories
All
|