Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

Just picked up this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9669410/SAS-war-hero-jailed-after-betrayal.html#disqus_thread

The custodial sentence just HAS to be overturned. 

[Rog]

Problem is that we live in an over-regulated, jobsworth, follow the rules, society. MYA (MInd Your Ass) management. Not allowed to use plain common sense, as it cannot be defined.

[Entwood]

Nick ... I assume you have never served in a military organisation, and also that you are not legally trained.... if I'm wrong in either case I apologise.

The Sgt pleaded guilty, at a Courts Martial that is the end of the affair EXCEPT for mitigation. The Judge Advocate has to comply with the pre-existing sentencing guidlines unless he feels the mitigation is strong enough. In this case he didn't.

Now I wasn't in court, so I can ONLY go by what is reported, however much of that does not "ring true" to my "military" ears .....

It is "claimed" that since his "coma" he suffered a memory loss ..... question .. if that were so just how is he still a serving member of the SAS ?? with all the security and stress that such a position holds ??  Sorry .. IMHO (and I could well be wrong) that is a nonsense....

As a fully trained and operative member of the SAS he has (had ?)  more training and knowledge of weapons handling rules, regulations and prohibitions, than probably any other serving members.....

He knew the rules, especially as a Sgt and Platoon Leader where he is supposed to set an example, but broke them .. big time ... and is now paying the penalty ....

[Entwood]

As you might expect, with my background I'm a member of several military forums, this matter is pretty high in the subject list at the moment. Just to give a flavour of how other military personnel view the matter ... here are 4 quotes which you may find interesting ...

This is not about his loss of memory, or someone else packing the kit.

This is about him returning from a patrol carrying an extra weapon and not handing it in and getting a receipt from the Armoury or the RMP.

He knew, or ought to have known, that is wrong.

Everything after that, is just sliding down the chute.

He came home from Iraq in 2007, he suffered his accident and memory difficulties in 2009. It therefore follows he had 2 years when he would have known he had the weapon, even if he subsequently forgot.

The plea of mitigation concerning the loss of memory is tenuous, for if he did not declare the weapon between 2007-2009, why would he have suddenly declared it later? On that basis I can understand why he was advised to plead guilty and did so - and why the judge was dismissive of the plea for mitigation.

From a civil law point of view, possession of an unlicenced firearm is an absolute offence. There are no excuses. The penalties are harsh, 5 years usually.

Military personnel are also subject to civil law. This was tried in a military court, so the judge was not bound by the civil penalty.

Under the circumstances i agree, a bit harsh. But it would have been worse in a civil court.

......  abuses of the declaration are severely disciplined, usually at minimum an RTU. If anything is taken outside of areas of army control (eg taken home) it immediately becomes a civil offence. The punishment given to this soldier was consistent with previous similar incidents, the only difference being that most don't get into the papers.

Perhaps if the telegraph had done a little more research .......  but that doesn't sell papers does it ....   

[Kevin Wood]

I think it's quite a topical reminder that, regardless of whether you're a "hero" or a "celebrity" you are not above the law, TBH.

[tunnie]

I think it's quite a topical reminder that, regardless of whether you're a "hero" or a "celebrity" you are not above the law, TBH.

Indeed, as Entwood says is you strip away down to the actual crime, its fairly clear cut? Reminds me of WW2 of British/American troops getting Luger's to take home.

He's taken a gun, not his and taken it home. He's not declared it, so was trying to hide it. What's the difference between doing that and doing the same with a priceless antique? 

Sure this kind of thing takes place a lot, just depends if you are caught?

[Entwood]

I think it's quite a topical reminder that, regardless of whether you're a "hero" or a "celebrity" you are not above the law, TBH.

Indeed, as Entwood says is you strip away down to the actual crime, its fairly clear cut? Reminds me of WW2 of British/American troops getting Luger's to take home.

He's taken a gun, not his and taken it home. He's not declared it, so was trying to hide it. What's the difference between doing that and doing the same with a priceless antique? 

Sure this kind of thing takes place a lot, just depends if you are caught?

It goes a tad beyond that as well Tunnie ... regardless of how, or why, he obtained the weapon .. he HAD IN HIS POSSESSION AN UNLICENCED FIREARM ....  now, the Labour Government passed a law that made such an offence an "absolute offence" ... no flexibility .. either he did or did not have a licence .. and he did not.

He is "lucky" IMO, as previous offenders dealt with by civilian courts have been much more severely dealt with, for what is apparently a less serious "crime"

Perhaps you remember the stink over this one ??

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/story-12659234-detail/story.html

The last part of the report being the most relevant part.

For completeness .. the final outcome ... and actually very different cases

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/GUN-SOLDIER-WALKS-FREE-COURT/story-12664247-detail/story.html

[tunnie]

I don't remember that case, but its very clear cut.

[Entwood]

For those interested .. the transcript of the Courts Martial is now available.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/nightingale-proceedings-0607112012.pdf

Whilst you may not wish to read the whole document, I do advise it purely to give an insight as to how these things are done. You may change your mind on the decisions made.

If you don't wish to wade through the whole document, may I recommend, at a minimum, the reading of the charges put to Sgt Nightingale.

It may well be unfortunate that he bought back a gun he had been presented with as a "thank you" .... but charge 2 shows he also had over 300 rounds of ammunition for various weapons.

IMHO that puts somewhat of a different complexion on the matter.

As I said at the start .. a lot more to the matter than the "outrage bus" press would have us believe.

It's nice easy to sell newspapers with only half the facts ......   

[Vamps]

Nicely explained E, thank you..............Interesting point about the telegraph, a good example of sensationalism....

[Bionic]

  Well said Entwood...those with a military or service background fully understand the Queens Regs...........and so the sentence would have been understood as being as fair as the evidence allowed.
Bring back National Service please and get some respect (including self respect) and comradship back into society. Other countries have it so why not us? OOPS I forgot about the sad joke doo-gooder human rights brigade  so we will probably keep sliding down the long shoot to where there is no justice or independance and big brother will rule all.........