logo
The Navy leadership is in crisis, but the Service itself is fine

The Navy leadership is in crisis, but the Service itself is fine

Telegraph14-05-2025

There is currently a crisis among our Navy's top leaders. The outgoing First Sea Lord – the head of the Service – Admiral Sir Ben Key, has been asked to 'step back' while the claim of affair with a subordinate officer is being investigated. Meanwhile, the person most likely to replace him, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins of the Royal Marines, is one of the subjects of a BBC Panorama documentary which suggests that he failed to correctly report alleged war crimes while serving as Director of Special Forces. The MoD responded that there was no evidence for these claims.
Each of these, on its own, would amount to a significant scandal. That they have emerged simultaneously – just as the Strategic Defence Review is about to be published – is damaging. It also means we are now in conspiracy-theory open season.
How important is this current crisis, and what can be done about it?
You may have noticed I said 'Navy's leaders' and not 'naval leadership.' I firmly believe the latter is in good shape. The problem the Royal Navy now has to address – while unpicking this mess and its surrounding conspiracies – is: why would anyone believe that?
The allegations surrounding Sir Ben, which are still under investigation, are particularly troubling given the lead he took on confronting behavioural scandals during his time as First Sea Lord, not least last year's investigation into 'misogyny, bullying and other unacceptable behaviours' in the submarine service. Some of that conduct was horrific and brought the Service into disrepute. What Admiral Key is alleged to have done here is far less serious, though it isn't negligible.
As one who formerly worked in the Navy's comms department, I'd also have to say this story has been terribly handled. It would make a good episode of The Thick of It – though it wouldn't be funny, because there are real people involved. Malcolm Tucker, the fictional head of No 10 communications in that series, would not be impressed – nor, as I understand it, was the real No. 10 in this case.
At the root of the issue is the fact that the Ministry of Defence communications machine protects the reputation of the ministers above that of any particular service – or the people in it, no matter how senior. That, along with never doing anything that might interfere with the No.10 comms grid, is hardwired in. In this case, the idea that the Navy might want to synchronise external announcements with internal communications – to assure those who must now lead their teams through the fallout – never crossed their minds.
Then there's the delusion that you can suppress damaging news through careful stage management. You can't. Put out a softening statement first, by all means, but be honest with the wording – don't say 'stepped back for private reasons' when that's only tangentially true.
Worse still, different branches within Defence ran different comms tracks, which meant two papers ended up racing to publish first. Not their fault – it's their job. But by losing control of the story, it broke mid-afternoon Friday – earlier than planned. By Sunday, the journalists who'd missed the scoop were under pressure to find new angles, many of which weren't true.
And still we don't really know what happened, how serious it was, or who was involved. Had more information been released early, identities could have been protected as part of the trade-off. Now the story will just run and run as new details inevitably leak, and no one will escape. What bothers me is: if we can't manage something like this properly, what happens when something really awful happens – like losing a ship, or going to war?
Meanwhile, Panorama airs its documentary into what happened under General Jenkins's command in Afghanistan. This has been a long time coming – documentaries like this always are. And the inquiry led by Sir Charles Haddon-Cave into 'unlawful activity by UK Special Forces' has been running since December 2022. General Gwyn has been the target of leaks before. That time it was to undermine his candidacy for the top job: Chief of Defence Staff.
However, given the lead time for Panorama, I don't believe this and Admiral Key's story breaking simultaneously is a coordinated attack on the Navy. No one has the ability to manipulate media timelines to that extent. Some may take delight in it, but that's not the same thing.
Still, the Navy now faces a dilemma over Jenkins's candidacy for First Sea Lord: expedite, delay (which could be for a very long time), or cancel. These are big decisions, not helped by the fact that two of the people at the level that would normally make decisions of this magnitude are now implicated. Hopefully this appearance on the BBC would have been factored in when he was chosen and so I suspect he will therefore be officially nominated soon, which will be good for the service. Nevertheless, with the General likely to attract regular headlines as both Panorama and the Haddon Cave enquiry head towards their respective conclusions, careful reputational handling will be required for some time to come.
There is some good to be plucked from the mess.
Operationally, this won't matter. Take the Navy and Joint Teams in Northwood overseeing the Carrier Strike Group as it nears the decision to enter the Houthi missile envelope in the Red Sea; they'll see this as no more than a minor distraction. Easily 98 per cent of the RN functions day to day without interaction with the head of service. Some will be annoyed, as will their families, but most will just crack on.
Likewise at the strategic level, whilst the timing adjacent to the Strategic Defence Review culmination is unfortunate, it won't make any material difference. It's not like the Navy will receive less money as a punishment – it won't receive any in the first place.
The real damage is to public perception, especially when public understanding of what the Navy is for is already so low. That hinges on whether these events are seen as isolated or endemic. In 25 years of service, I'd say – vehemently – it's the former. And that's not the Kool-Aid talking; I spent those years surrounded by good people doing hard jobs in extraordinary conditions. But outsiders only hear about the bad eggs – and lately, there have been too many. Now this.
So, the Navy and Defence have a job to do – starting now – to convince people otherwise.
If these two organisations can't do that together, beginning with communications and grounded in education, then they will fail

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

1989 police probe into murder of John Devine ‘seriously defective'
1989 police probe into murder of John Devine ‘seriously defective'

BreakingNews.ie

time16 minutes ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

1989 police probe into murder of John Devine ‘seriously defective'

The 1989 police investigation into the murder of John Devine was 'seriously defective', Northern Ireland's Police Ombudsman has found. The 37-year-old was murdered by loyalists on Fallswater Street in west Belfast on July 23rd, 1989. Advertisement The father-of-three died after armed men entered his home and shot him a number of times at close range. Police Ombudsman Marie Anderson has highlighted a 'series of failures' in the investigation. These include that a man prosecuted for Mr Devine's murder almost three decades later should have been arrested and interviewed as a suspect at the time. Mrs Anderson's report is also critical of the then police force, the RUC's wider suspect and arrest strategy, which she found resulted in police taking action against only two people on a list of 36 persons of interest, despite intelligence and other information which linked individuals to the murder. Advertisement The report identifies that house-to-house and witness inquiries were not adequately pursued and led to missed opportunities to gather evidence which may have assisted police to identify suspects or open up lines of inquiry, and that all available forensic opportunities were not fully exploited. The investigation also found no evidence that the RUC alerted Mr Devine to the fact that his date of birth had been linked to the name John Devine, in a document found in two separate loyalist paramilitary intelligence caches. Although the document contained a different address and photo, the police did not consider the potential risk presented to Mr Devine, including whether a 'threat to life' warning was appropriate. Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland Marie Anderson said she believed the family of John Devine had been 'failed' by police (Liam McBurney/PA) 'Given the available evidence and other information gathered during my investigation, I consider the original RUC investigation to be seriously defective, and not capable of leading to the identification of those responsible,' she said. Advertisement Ms Anderson acknowledged that the RUC investigation of the murder was conducted at a time when policing resources in Troubles-related incidents were stretched and under significant pressure in a year when 81 people died. She also found that there was no specific intelligence available to police that, if acted upon, could have prevented the murder of Mr Devine. The Ombudsman concluded that Mr Devine was the victim of a campaign of sectarian violence mounted against the nationalist community. 'Loyalist paramilitaries alone were responsible for his murder,' she said. Advertisement 'Given the significant failings in the RUC investigation, I believe that Mr Devine's family were failed by police in their search for the truth regarding the perpetration of his murder.' Solicitor Padraig O Muirigh (Rebecca Black/PA) Solicitor Padraig O Muirigh, who acts for Mr Devine's family, said they welcome the findings of the Ombudsmans' report. 'Mrs Anderson has concluded that the failings in the RUC investigation of Mr Devine's murder were so fundamental that the murder investigation was 'incapable of detecting potential offenders and supporting a prosecution',' he said. 'There were a litany of serious deficiencies identified in the Police Ombudsman investigation including a failure of RUC Special Branch to disseminate intelligence to the police investigation team, the failure to arrest and interview key suspects and multiple forensic shortcomings. Advertisement 'These findings are a damning indictment of the RUC investigation into John Devine's murder. 'The breadth and nature of these failings cannot be explained by mere incompetence. 'The Devine family have a long-held view that those involved in the murder were protected from prosecution by the RUC and that the security forces colluded with loyalist paramilitaries. 'That view has been reinforced by these findings. The Devine family commend Mrs Anderson and her staff for the diligent investigation they have conducted.'

Driver charged after American woman killed in crash
Driver charged after American woman killed in crash

BreakingNews.ie

time16 minutes ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

Driver charged after American woman killed in crash

A 66-year-old woman has been charged with causing death by careless driving after an American woman was killed in a crash. Police said that pedestrian Allison Eichner, aged in her 40s and from Connecticut, died after a single-vehicle collision in the Causeway Road area of Bushmills on Wednesday. Advertisement Energency services responded to the incident shortly before 12.30pm. Ms Eichner, a pedestrian at the time of the crash, was taken to hospital but died from her injuries. Officers from the collision investigation unit have charged a 66-year-old woman with causing death by careless driving. She is due to appear at Coleraine Magistrates' Court on Friday. Advertisement All charges will be reviewed by the Public Prosecution Service.

Martin says defamation reforms will happen ‘quickly'
Martin says defamation reforms will happen ‘quickly'

BreakingNews.ie

time34 minutes ago

  • BreakingNews.ie

Martin says defamation reforms will happen ‘quickly'

Defamation laws in Ireland will be changed as quickly as the Government can achieve it, the Taoiseach pledged, as he praised a 'first-class' BBC journalist at the centre of Gerry Adams' successful libel action. Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson, in which he denies any involvement. Advertisement Last month, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him €100,000 after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC, which was found by the jury not to have acted in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way, was also ordered to pay the former Sinn Féin leader's legal costs. At the time, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said there were 'profound' implications from the jury's decision. 'As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could – and they warned that today's decision could hinder freedom of expression.' Advertisement Spotlight reporter Jennifer O'Leary said she had entered the witness box in the trial with 'nothing to hide, only sources to protect and I want to thank them for trusting me'. The broadcaster's legal team was granted a stay in the payment of the full award as it takes time to consider an appeal. Asked if he agreed with the BBC's assessment of the case on Thursday, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said: 'I think the defamation laws need to be changed – we're going to change them.' Mr Martin said the Government would pass the legislation 'as quickly as we can' and paid tribute to Ms O'Leary. Advertisement 'I think we do need to get it through to create a balanced environment for commentary and for investigative journalism.' He added: 'Jennifer O'Leary is a first-class journalist.' Former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams outside the High Court in Dublin, after the libel action concluded (Brian Lawless/PA) Among the key provisions in the Defamation Bill highlighted by government are the abolition of juries in High Court defamation actions, which is hoped to reduce delays and legal costs; and of protections against strategic lawsuits, also known as SLAPPs actions, viewed as having a chilling effect on public interest journalism and press freedom. The draft laws also include a statutory power for the Circuit Court to issue a 'Norwich Pharmacal' order, allowing a digital services provider to identify an anonymous poster of defamatory statements online. Advertisement Mr Martin, who took legal action against Google at the High Court for information about who had financed fake ads which claimed he had endorsed specific cryptocurrencies, added: 'We've published heads of the bill, and (Justice Minister Jim) O'Callaghan is going to proceed, we're going to do it in this Government.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store