Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence was clear and convincing that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he got into his car before the accident occurred and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: there was no evidence on record that the Appellant was authorised to carry his firearm while off-duty; that, on the contrary, the evidence on record showed that normally security guards did not carry their weapons off-duty; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the charge of carrying a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-issued weapon while off duty and without authorisation was not substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant carried his weapon at the time of the accident and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in, inter alia, finding that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant was in possession of the firearm after having consumed alcohol and that the charge of carrying a service weapon after having consumed alcohol was unsubstantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the finding that the Appellant drove under the influence of alcohol while in possession of an unauthorised weapon, together with the offence of travelling without insurance, justified the sanction of dismissal, which was proportionate in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.