Rheines v R.

In a service sentencing appeal, the appellate court may correct injustice but must give due respect to the Court Martial’s specialist assessment of service discipline. A reduction in rank is not merely a financial penalty. It concerns the offender’s responsibility, status and fitness to retain rank.

When assessing that fitness, a Court Martial may take account of dishonest conduct connected with the offence, including persistent lies. Such conduct does not make the substantive offence more serious. It may nevertheless demonstrate that a senior service member is unfit to hold rank because it undermines the example, obedience and discipline expected of that rank.

The appellant, a sergeant in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, pleaded guilty before a Court Martial to three breaches of Standing Orders. They arose from driving an uninsured and unregistered vehicle in Germany and failing to comply with a stop sign. After the incident, he persistently and falsely claimed to have driven another person’s vehicle and involved two innocent civilians in that account.

The Court Martial reduced him from sergeant to corporal. He appealed, contending that the sentence was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the Court Martial could take his subsequent dishonesty into account when deciding that reduction in rank, rather than a financial penalty, was appropriate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The reduction in rank was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The court applied the specialist appellate approach stated in R v Love (97/5188/S2) and confirmed in R v Glenton ([2010] EWCA Crim 930). The appellate court may correct injustice, but must respect the Court Martial’s particular competence to assess offending in the context of service life and to determine the sanction needed for discipline and efficiency.

3. The Court Martial had been wrong to assume that the appellant’s previous drink-driving conviction involved the same vehicle. That error did not undermine the sentence. The appellant had admitted a prolonged failure to register the vehicle with the British Forces Germany licensing office, and the registration requirement applied whether or not the vehicle was being driven on the roads.

4. The appellant’s persistent lies did not make the admitted motoring offences themselves worse. However, in a service disciplinary setting, the Court Martial was entitled to consider conduct connected with those offences when deciding whether he remained fit to hold his rank. His prolonged dishonest account, his involvement of innocent civilians, and his denial of accurate Military Police evidence were directly relevant to that issue.

5. The sentencing guidance did not confine the inquiry to the bare ingredients of the offences. Reduction in rank entails loss of responsibility and status as well as financial loss. The appellant, as a senior non-commissioned officer expected to set an example and uphold discipline, had demonstrated by his conduct that a fine was insufficient and that he was unfit to continue as a sergeant.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), sitting as the Courts Martial Appeal Court — dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2011] EWCA Crim 2397.
• Court Martial at the British Forces Germany Military Court Centre — following guilty pleas to three breaches of Standing Orders, reduced the appellant from sergeant to corporal.