Ships Punishment No 5

[Macnab]

In 1918 a soldier serving in the Middle East absconded from ship while awaiting transport with his Battalion to France.  He was caught and returned to the ship, which sailed soon afterwards.
 

He was charged with leaving the ship without a pass, being in the town without permission, and drunkenness.  His Battalion CO,  with whom he was already familiar because of his previous indiscipline, sentenced him to 7 days Ships Punishment No 5, and fined him 5 shillings. 

 

Is anyone able to help me with what Ships Punishment No 5 was, please?

 

Thanks very much.

 

Steven

 

[KizmeRD]

How sure are we?
Naval Summary Punishment No.5 is dismissal from HM Service and would require referral to C-in-C (abroad), or Admiralty (UK).

The officer commanding troops onboard (i.e. his battalion CO in this case) would have certain powers to punish delegated to him (within limits), but drunkenness and absence without leave (under the provisions of King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions) would not attract a No.5 punishment and it is improbable that any commanding officer of a warship would permit such a sentence to proceed. 
There must be more to this than what’s already been stated.

[ss002d6252]

5 hours ago, Stevenorange1984@aol.com said:

In 1918 a soldier serving in the Middle East absconded from ship while awaiting transport with his Battalion to France.  He was caught and returned to the ship, which sailed soon afterwards.
 

He was charged with leaving the ship without a pass, being in the town without permission, and drunkenness.  His Battalion CO,  with whom he was already familiar because of his previous indiscipline, sentenced him to 7 days Ships Punishment No 5, and fined him 5 shillings. 

 

Is anyone able to help me with what Ships Punishment No 5 was, please?

 

Thanks very much.

 

Steven

 

Can you give us his details ?

 

Craig

[KizmeRD]

Must mean 7 days detention (No. 4 punishment), otherwise it does not make any sense.

[horatio2]

I don not think this has anything to do with the Naval Discipline Act and RN summary punishments. The NDA confers no authority on Army commanders in what was, by the sound of it, a merchant transport. 7 days detention (RN No.4) is most unlikely in legality, appropriateness, duration and context. I would guess it is some authority grranted under the Army Act.

[KizmeRD]

I agree that it would generally be inappropriate, if not downright unlawful, to apply punishments sanctioned by naval discipline on troops travelling aboard civilian troopships hired by the Sea Transport Section of the Board of Trade on behalf of the War Office, if that is the case here. Therefore there appears to be more to the story than is currently made known to us.

 

Still not entirely sure about what is being meant here by ‘Ship’s Punishment’, as it is not a generally used term, but clearly it is not the same thing as commonly understood by the term ‘Naval Summary Punishments’ (i.e. as applying to sailors and persons aboard warships of the Royal Navy). Perhaps more details and context would help get to the bottom of the matter - where does the specific reference to No. 5 punishment being awarded actually come from?

Soldiers absconding and getting drunk would ordinarily be a matter of military discipline and an offender would have the right and expectation to be charged and sentenced according to Army law (which would  govern what punishments a Battalion CO could impose).

Edited 9 August , 2020 by KizmeRD

[Ralph Currell]

The attached table of punishments comes from an 1883 edition of QR & Os for the Army, in the 'Movement of Troops by Sea' section. The punishments here seem a bit more in line with what Steven is describing.  I don't have a copy of Great War era KR & Os at hand, but perhaps someone can verify if the punishments and numbers were the same.

 

Regards,

   Ralph

Edited 10 August , 2020 by Ralph Currell

[KizmeRD]

I think you have got it...that is indeed more in line with what we understand the punishments were.

 

For sake of good order, here’s the Navy equivalent list taken from King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions 1913

(not quite the same).

 

 

 

 

 

[Ralph Currell]

Yes, quite a difference!

 

Apparently the summary punishment table for troops embarked appears in Appendix XX of King’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions 1913.  This is part of Volume II, which I have not been able to find online.

 

Regards,

   Ralph

[RNCVR]

Thanks for posting the RN Punishments tables Kiz,

 

Best.... Bryan

[Macnab]

Thank you all for your collective wisdom, which has been most informative.  I think that Ralph's information seems to fit the bill, especially when considered in the light of the facts of the incidents which led to this thread about Ships Punishment No 5 and the sister thread about Ships Punishment No 6.

 

Regarding the requests by Kiz and Craig for further information about the incident, this is all the information I have, and was taken from the relevant entry on a page in the soldier's service record (including the terminology).  I have not given his name or unit because I am not related to him, and wanted to avoid any possibility of embarrassment to any surviving relative.

 

This has been a curiosity, and I am grateful to have an explanation.

 

Steven