MaxD Posted 2 April , 2020 Share Posted 2 April , 2020 (edited) There have been many threads on the subjects of absence and desertion. The distinction is clear . The Police Gazette publication of lists of men sought by the War Office uses the heading (presumably that of the War Office) "Deserters and Absentees from His Majesty's Service" The example I am looking at was dated 7 Nov 1916. The date of desertion (sic) is almost invariably in the last two weeks of October, the latest one being 29 Oct, just over a week before publication. Given that almost surely none of the men listed had yet been tried, or perhaps even charged, was the War Office (or the police) not situating the appreciation by using the word desertion. Max Edited 2 April , 2020 by MaxD typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 2 April , 2020 Share Posted 2 April , 2020 A better title might have been "Missing without leave from the Forces", since the purpose of the entry was to alert police forces to absentees and arrest them, prior to handing them over to the Army for trial. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrewer Posted 2 April , 2020 Share Posted 2 April , 2020 My old man was an MP at the end of WW2, one of their jobs was to pick up deserters from their places of arrest and return them to the Army, or take convicted (if that's the correct term) soldiers to the prison at Colchester....he said they'd almost always gone absent due to wife/girlfriend problems or family illness...I would imagine it would be the same in WW1 in the main. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxD Posted 2 April , 2020 Author Share Posted 2 April , 2020 Ron - agreed. One wonders whether a v smart lawyer might have argued that by labelling a man a deserter before he was legally such, his client was being disadvantaged when it came to trial - but short shrift is the term that springs to mind! Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 2 April , 2020 Share Posted 2 April , 2020 The lawyer's argument wouldn't stand up. The way desertion and absence are defined in the Army Act leaves the onus of proof on the defendant - if you were not where you should be, when you should be, and didn't have leave of absence, then you are prima facie guilty of (at least) absence without leave. It is not a case of "innocent until proved guilty". In any case, the Police Gazette was and is not, as far as I know, available to the public. Even Rumpole could not get an acquittal on grounds of prejudice. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now