Was this really the only way of dealing with this...?

[Load Toad]

Surely, if true a more - appropriate way could have been found to deal with it...?

SAS war hero jailed after 'betrayal' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9669410/SAS-war-hero-jailed-after-betrayal.html)

If true, as reported - I'm disgusted.

[althenick]

Load Toad

A different perspective...

The possession of an unlicensed firearm carries a heavy penalty in this country. The "sorry-but-my-mates-packed-my-kit" excuse does not hold any water as (a) They should have known better and (b) bottom-line, and unfair as it may be, you are responsible for your own kit - every service person is taught that from day 1. bearing in mind that these guys deal with weaponry day-in and out they should've known the score.

In Iraq, his equipment was packed by colleagues, one of whom placed the pistol inside a container that was sent first to the SAS regimental headquarters in Hereford, then to his home where it remained unopened until 2010.

So for Nigh-on 3 years he never upacked any of his kit and left it skulking around the house? - Do you beleive that? Unlikely!



However I agree - the sentance was too harsh - he should have been torn a new arsehole by his CO and there is an end to it.

[racedo]

Its a difficult one...

What happens if it was a lot more than a handgun ?

Unfortunately he is the example being made to everybody else about bringing back illicit weapons........

[Lima Juliet]

There was a RAF Flt Lt that brought just some ammo home and he got a week in the glasshouse, a month in a civvy nick and kicked out without any money.

So, no, I don't believe this SAS chap should have any special treatment - if anything he has seriously abused the immense trust put upon him. :=

I think his sentence was harsh, but needed, to make an example.

LJ

[Tourist]

Leon

Are you stoned?

[500N]

"and he got a week in the glasshouse, a month in a civvy nick and"

The glasshouse being the Military prison ?

Question
Why would he spend time in a civvy prison ?

Why does the service not handle these cases themselves
and convict the person ?

Wasn't he in uniform when he committed the offense ?

[SOSL]

When a service person is sent to a civil prison, he or she goes to MCTC for admin stuff before being passed on to HMP.

The service does handle these cases and does convict but sometimes they send the convict to civil prison according to the offence.

Makes no difference whether he was in uniform or not

Rgds SOS

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Might be appropriate to mention Sir Ranulph Fiennes, who 'borrowed' a bit of explosives and proceeded to wire up a filmset. It's in his autobiography. Was fined and dismissed the Regiment, but I think that was it.

Now, would he have gained all that sponsorship and achieved so many great things with a prison term on his record? I think not.

[Trojan1981]

First point: due to its arduous nature and relatively low pay, active service in the military should accrue for an individual a certain amount of social capital. Even more so for someone who has seen exemplary service.

Second point: the effects of war service, PTSD and physical injury (particularly head injuries) on behavioral patterns of veterans are still not completely understood

Which brings me to my critique. We have here a special forces veteran with years of exemplary service and a war service injury being convicted of a relatively minor offence (let's face it, he was paid to handle weapons for a long time and is not of criminal character) and sentenced by some REMF to an inappropriately long period of detention. F@&k you and your service too, thank you very much. With changing demographics, cutbacks and bollocks like this, the UK will struggle to recruit the best and brightest in the future.

[Robert Cooper]

It's not difficult. I'm with Load Toad on this one, it's disgusting.
I have seen similar circumstance dealt with summarily by the CO, which is what should have happened here. This is excessive punishment.

Bob C

[parabellum]

So, no, I don't believe this SAS chap should have any special treatment - if
anything he has seriously abused the immense trust put upon him. :=


I think his sentence was harsh, but needed, to make an example.


Complete and utter tripe. The guy has a medical condition, attested to by experts. The Regiment will, as best they can, help his wife and children until he is out again, I would expect that to be before Christmas 2012.

There are always people both in and out of the Army who resent elite soldiers/sailors/airmen, looks as though the presiding judge and Leon are two of them.

[Dengue_Dude]

Parabellum +1

[Lima Juliet]

Just because you are an ex-SAS trooper does not absolve you from the law. We all know the seriousness of firearms when we have all made declarations after live range time - even a 14 year old cadet does this (and yes I know UKSF probably don't do this, but the individuals will have done earlier in their career). Firearms offences are VERY serious in the UK and illegal possesion cases like this have a normal sentence of between 6mths to 5yrs (if you don't believe me, look it up).

He could have handed in this weapon at any time and nothing would have been said - he broke this trust.

Finally, why were the Police at his house? The chaps in charge take a very dim view on a potential disclosure issue like this may well have been as well.

LJ

[porch monkey]

No, he is not above the law Leon, only the rich and famous are. But it would help if you read the article fully before asking dumb questions.

[Whenurhappy]

I, too, was about to queue for the Outrage Bus, until I read this rather sensible post on Arrse:
If you have to ask that question, you really shouldn't be commenting on Courts Martials. Yes they do. As for being coerced into making a confession, no he wasn't. If he was looking at 5yrs max on a no guilty plea, his counsel are obliged to tell him what his options are and to advise him accordingly. They don't make his mind up for him, they do as he asks. If he decides that he'll stick with a no guilty plea after advice, then his counsel get on with the job of defending him. Having a sensible approach to the matter usually results in a more lenient sentence, as has happened here. As for the memory loss, well whilst that may be seen as a mitigating circumstance, it is no defence. That's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. Sad end to a good career, and sympathy towards his family's predicament, but he's been on the block long enough to know the score. I don't know the man and I've no axe to grind, I hope he gets a reduced sentence on appeal. His conviction is unlikely to be overturned, so an appeal against the sentence is his only remaining option. Courts Martials are not a one sided affair, but let's get our feet back on the ground. We're all big lads, you pays your money, you takes your chances.

There are too many 'military' weapons on the streets now, especially around the Manchester (http://www.laterooms.com/en/p9405/k16296355_manchester-hotels.aspx) area. They came from Iraq and Afghganistan and they were brought back by British soldiers. He hasn't been betrayed or hung out to dry. He's been investigated, charged, tried and convicted. It happens.
If my luggage from AFG, c 2007, had been left unoppened in my attic and then searched by the Police, two things would have happened:
1. A BIOHAZARD team would have been mobilised.
2. The Police would have found two weapons - which I has declared to OP PLUNDER, cleared throught the unit ATO, reported to HMRC and local police on my return (but not spotted by the ATSy guys at teh APOD, until I pointed both items out...)

Moreover, had I not followed the correct procedures, I would have received a stiff sentence from the Court (CM or High Court) and I doubt that anyone would be joining that queue to have me released.

The original Daily Mailygraph article does imply a 'Breaker Morant' Kangaroo Court (can I say that Ed? Yessss...but don't say monkey!) But it wasn't (in either case). By pleasing guilty, the Sgt was spared much of the prurient evidence from the Prosecution and also allowed him to shine through mitigation - even though the Court did not accept the 'memory loss' excuse. Moroever, why was the Sgt still serving with the SAS if he had such an acute brain injury or psychiatric problem? All in all, his sentence was light and he knew the rules.

On a related subject, some of you will recall the outcry just after Dunblane, when units and messes had to hand in their war trophies from GWI (typically, AK-47s). Allegedly these had been deactivated, but IIRC, a significant number were still in a fireable condition!


http://www.museumoftechnology.org.uk/nimages/A0548x_ex.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pictim/mines/photos/pomz2.jpg

[BEagle]

From the Daily Telegraph:

In 2009, Sgt Nightingale, now a member of the SAS selection staff, took part in a 200-mile fund-raising trek in Brazil. He collapsed after 30 miles and fell into a coma for three days.

He recovered but his memory was severely damaged, according to two expert witnesses, including Prof Michael Kopleman of King’s College, London, an authority on memory loss.

In May, 2010, Sgt Nightingale was living in a house with another soldier close to the regiment’s headquarters when he was posted to Afghanistan at short notice.

During the tour, his housemate’s estranged wife claimed her husband had assaulted her and kept a stash of ammunition in the house. West Mercia Police raided the house and found the Glock, still in its container.

Sgt Nightingale’s court martial did not dispute that the pistol had been a gift. It accepted statements from expert witnesses, including Dr Susan Young, a forensic psychologist also from King’s College, London. She said that he probably had no recollection that he had the gun.

The court also accepted that Sgt Nightingale had suffered severe memory loss. But the judge did not believe that he had no recollection of being in possession of the weapon.

A ridiculous sentence which must be overturned. Why does a judge advocate think that he has more knowledge of Sgt Nightingale's condition than the exceptionally highly qualified expert witnesses?

[The Old Fat One]

Why does a judge advocate think that he has more knowledge of Sgt Nightingale's condition than the exceptionally highly qualified expert witnesses?

Dude pleaded guilty Beags. Judge advocate has got a job to do, he assessed the level of mitigation and handed down the sentence. If it's too harsh, an appeal is a straightforward process.

[SOSL]

Morning Beags. Answer: Dunno - I wasn't there. All we've got to go on are the media reports and you know how reliable they are!

Rgds SOS

[November4]

Looks like he was originally going for the defence of not knowing he had the weapon in his possession. Going from memory, it for the Prosecution to show that the person actually knew of the item and that it was in his possession. By saying his mates had packed his container and he hadn't opened it, he was saying didn't know he was in possession of the weapon.

In a previous job, I saw a number of cases of drug and offensive weapon prosecutions dropped over that same argument e.g.


machette found in a car - must have been left by the previous owner
spliff found in a coat pocket whilst being worn by the person - must have put there by someone who borrowed the coat earlier in the evening
1 spliff in a car, 4 occupants, no one would admit to it being theirs and no way to tie to one person...


But by pleading guilty, he has admitted he knew the weapon was in the container or he was advised that his not knowing was not going to be accepted. Perhaps his defence was advised that he should change his plea. Agree that it was harsh sentence especially when compared to what some :mad: get for violent crimes.

[Trim Stab]

and yes I know UKSF probably don't do this,

They do actually. And 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.

[ORAC]

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.

[PURPLE PITOT]

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.

[November4]

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.

Good point Airpolice - so the offence was complete when he didn't declare the weapon in theatre not when it was found in the UK.

[Pontius Navigator]

On not unpacking kit, true. Both sons-in-law did just that. Think back, the kit was desert kit and not therefore used in UK. They were thankful for getting home in one piece and basically dumped th kit where they stopped. They had post-deployment leave, possibly new jobs, and they got on with their lives.

You know how busy it can be and unpacking kit that is not in use will be very low priority. Then new pattern kit was issued and unpacking would become an irrelevance.

Easily done.

[SOSL]

I'm afraid I have to agree with TStab.

Most of us on this forum have long service and some of us have done things for which the nation should be grateful (not me I admit - had a cushy time).

But if any of us break the law we get done; whether by CM, magistrate or even High Court. Given our supposed position in society we will probably be punished more severely by any court than any other plonker (as I have observed). Which isn't fair - but the fact is that this guy pleaded guilty to a rather serious offence.

Given all this, he actually received a fairly lenient sentence - only 18 months and not in civil prison.

He loses his career and, possibly his family house, which is awful for his family, but at least he doesn't go to the criminal training college, run by the government as HMPS.

He may be able to rescue his life, when he gets out (or his appeal succeeds), especially as he seems to be a man of resolve.

I have seen stupid boys go into Colchester and some time later emerge as grown men. If he goes in as a grown man, which he will do, I imagine. He will probably come out as a serious contender in the rat race. I hope he does!

With respect, I wish him and his family the very best of luck and I hope the Regiment will help them as far as they can.

Rgds SOS

[Shack37]

PN
You know how busy it can be and unpacking kit that is not in use will be very low priority. Then new pattern kit was issued and unpacking would become an irrelevance.
Easily done.



:D:D:D

How very true, in another life, on return from Aden (amongst many others) my worldly posessions in the ubiquitous Deep Sea Boxes took ages to arrive at my home (no known posting at time of departure). A very unsympathetic SWO at Thorney Island, unable to understand the situation, could only react with periodic threats. Just as well I hadn't packed anything interesting in them for transit to my home in Belfast in 1967/1968.

[Jumping_Jack]

The absolute nature of the firearms legislation gives almost no room for manouevre. If you find a weapon dumped in your front garden, pick it up and take it to your local nick, you will have committed an offence and will be liable for a 5 year stretch. Arguments regarding whether it would be safer to leave the firearm in place (and risk someone else walking by and taking it) are irrelevant.
'Do you have a firearms licence for the firearm you are in possession of?'

....'No'.....

'You're nicked'.

[dctyke]

I spent 4 months doing 2 or 3 lectures a week in a departure lounge of a OOA. The lecture was about taking any ordinance or suchlike home and the consequences of getting found out. We used to offer a amnesty if it was handed in there and then, you would be amazed at what some people thought it was ok to take home. I'm not suprised and there will be plenty of others with 'things' in their homes in GB.

[OmegaV6]

He was lucky ....

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun | This is Surrey (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/story-12659234-detail/story.html)

That was a civvy court in front of a jury.

[goudie]

English dramatist George Chapman in 1654 - Revenge for Honour: 'Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle... For doing deeds of nature! I'm ashamed. The law is such an ass.'

[Bigpants]

Apparently HMG tightened up gun laws after WW1because they became fearful of old soldiers taking up arms after discovering the country was not quite the land fit for heroes promised to them by some Welsh Politician....1926 general strike, people in dungarees breaking wind in the palaces of the....

The law apart suspect Dave, George and Nick a bit concerned about well trained squaddies bringing trophy shooters home from their war on terror, hunt for WMD or what ever it was I forget...

Of course criminals have no trouble sourcing shooters and hand grenades up in Gunchester...

[Just This Once...]

He was lucky ....

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun | This is Surrey

That was a civvy court in front of a jury.

He received a suspended 12 month sentence.

[Courtney Mil]

No matter what we may think about the rights and wrongs, the moral aspects or the record or intentions of those involved, the issue is (sadly, I agree) very simple. UK firearms law (nor most other laws) makes little or no allowance for circumstances. In fact that law is one of the clearest we have. If you are in possession of a firearm for which you do not hold a licence, you are committing a crime for which there is a clearly laid-down penalty in civil law.

OmegaV6, you cite a case where the outcome seems so appallingly unfair. The point is that he did, clearly commit a crime under the act and the jury would have had no option but to find him guilty. The judge would have been bound by sentencing guidelines. The only bloke that could have made a difference to the whole issue (once the poor lad had taken possession of the shotgun) was the arresting officer. Maybe he could have handled things differently. Once arrested, the guy's fate was sealed. Sad, but true. IMHO, the guy acted very honourably and went to prison for so doing.

Now, had I been in Paul Clarke's position, even though I know the Act, I would probably have done the same thing, expecting better treatment from the Police for, potentially, stopping very nasty crime or even helping to solve one. As for the SAS gent, I have been told EVERY time I left theatre not to take any hardware with me as souvenirs. Different cases, same law, I'm afraid.

[OmegaV6]

I agree with both the last two posts .. and yes .. ON APPEAL the guy got a reduced sentence.

Point of the law is that the judge at the trial must go by the sentencing guidlines .. which for unlawful possession are around 5 years. ....

Appeal court has stronger powers to reduce sentence, and in that case did so.

BUT he was still originally sentenced to 5 years... far less than the 18 months for the SAS Sgt.

The circumstances were also very different ..as I'm sure most will see.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

It may be clear, but the fact remains that it's a #@*&! stupid law. As is any law that prosecutes an honest man doing what any reasonable person would do.

Man phones Police. By the time Police turn up another bad 'un slopes off with the weapon, then shoots another sub-postmaster. Man isn't prosecuted, but postmaster is dead. Is this the society you want???


.

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed no, it is not. But, and here's a big but, the law has to be clear. As is this one. It is close to impossible to get laws passed as it is. How complicated would they be to take account of every single, possible set of circumstances. I don't like the outcome of that case any more than you, but that is the law and it IS completely clear. I say again, the person that could have changed things was the arresting officer. A little discretion, perhaps? A caution? An amnesty?

I feel sick whenever a real criminal gets off with any crime, including gun crimes, possession, etc. Make exceptions to that law and you just make it easier for their defence lawyer to get them off.

[The Old Fat One]

All this conjecturing is muddying up the waters and...

As is any law that prosecutes an honest man doing what any reasonable person would do.

...indeed, a true statement, but utterly irrelevant to the case at hand.

There are two issues.

Was a crime committed. Answer yes, mate pleaded guilty.

Was the sentence appropriate given the mitigation. Answer, we don't know, because we are not privvy to the full facts. Neither are the media or anybody outside the legal teams/judge. In fact, if you have ever participated in a court martial as a defending officer, you will know that even the "jury" (that's the 3 officers sitting next to the QC) don't get to see the full unredacted evidence.

But if it is considered a "harsh or unusual" punishment, his legal team will appeal it.

I say again, the person that could have changed things was the arresting officer.

In years gone by maybe, but increasingly plod (military and civil) are going to be held accountable if they don't play it by the book.

Somewhat trivial compared to the case in hand, but just before I left the mob, I drove off base, realised I had left my left my wallet in MQ and u-turned back into the main gate. Gate guard duly stopped me..I explained...he told me to stay still and fetched duty plod who promptly went into the full monty caution... "anything you say blah blah ****ing blah", (for not having my ID on me)

The wife and kids thought it was hilarious...and looking back so do I. But also a little bit sad.

[si.]

The declaration taken at the end of live firing, is also a legal minefield. As a qualified RCO, I would be required to take from everyone present 'the declaration'.

A number of my assistants would then carry the remaining live rounds, all the empty brass, and a large collection of weapons off the range. place them in their cars, and drive them back t the armoury. Often these assistants would be civilians, who had no blue card, and would be driving their own civilain cars. Often to an armoury many miles away.

As one of my civvy jobs once entailed traffic management for the Home Office ;), I often imagined the conversation which would undoubtedly taken place following a routine traffic stop..........

[Courtney Mil]

Two points, TOFO.

First, the only person in those circumstances that could have changed what came next was the arresting officer. Show me who else?

Second, had he *the Police officer in question) been 'sensible' about it, I doubt he would have faced disciplinary action, under the circumstances as his actions could be easily justified - by common sense, if nothing else.

That was the only point in the chain of events where any flexibility existed.

"Thank you, Sir, for being so honest and public spirited. However, I have to point out to you that you may have committed an offence under the Firearms Act 1968 in that I believe that you were in possession of an unlinceced firearm. I have to point out that to do so is a breech of the law. In veiw of the fact that you appear to have acted in the public interest without intention to commit further crime, I must caution you that any future action of this nature on your behalf will be treated as a serious crime and you may be procecuted."

I am, of course now guilty of serious thread drift as I am refering to the second case cited here, not that raised by the OP.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Also TOFO,
I know it's irrelevant to the legal case, but my point was about the society it is creating....for those still living in the UK that is. I've voted with my feet.

..and that is still relevant to the OP, because it appears that there is an increasing lack of common sense, judgement or justice, which is something I'm not prepared to put up with.

.

[juliet]

The self righteousness by some on here is disgusting.

Raid the homes of any of us that have been on Ops over the past 100 years or so and see what turns up.

Danny is a good man, and this is complete bollocks.

[iRaven]

I'm sure he is a good man, but he f^cked up. He could have taken the piece back to work at any time in the 24 months+ and declared it - no questions asked. If he wanted to keep it, there are plenty of people that could have decommisioned it, certificated it and then he could have mounted it on his lounge wall if he wanted to.

As for raiding "any of us who have been on Ops in the past 100 years" - feel free, you will find no firearms/explosives in my household. However, standby for a strongly worded note from my solicitor for compensation for the stress you put my family under - so you'd better have pretty good grounds for suspicion!

I suspect he will be out a lot quicker than the 18 month sentence, but maybe it will serve as a reminder to those that decide to do stuff like this "in the next 100 years" not to do it.

iRaven

[Pontius Navigator]

Apparently HMG tightened up gun laws after WW1because they became fearful of old soldiers taking up arms
I recall a similar worry after WW2 with the discharge of trained killers able to kill with a rabbit punch.

Then a couple of years ago we had an old boy drove to our club to give a talk on WW2 commandoes. He brought some souvenirs with him, no pistol but any one of which could have got him a prison sentence:

A Fairbairn dagger, a knuckle duster and a spring loaded cosh!

Yes, there will be lots of souvenirs from recent wars as much must have slipped through.

[Jumping_Jack]

Juliet, enough of the outrage. There is no 'self rightiousness' merely pointing out that the law with regard to firearms is explicit and without flexibility. Under certain circumstances, I grant you, that law may seem to be counter productive.

Like iRaven I have been on Ops many times over the past 15 years and you won't find anything of that nature in my gaff. I did try to bring back a could of muskets from Iraq that had been left in the office by a previous incumbent but the bureaucracy simply couldn't be over come. I didn't then try to smuggle them back! Shame but there we go....

[Whenurhappy]

iRaven - I agree. The rule are abundantly clear to all personnel going on ops - certainly for the 27 years I have been in uniform. There are ways and means to bring back items (ie offensive weapons) legitimately (qv) provided they are not covered under OP PLUNDER.*


* Mind you, I never forgave my father for handing in my Grandfather's Mk VI Webley from the Great War when my Grandmother died. It had spent a peaceful 55 years sitting in her top drawer!

http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/handguns/great_britain/revolver/1287751711.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

First 'Op' I went on included a Jungle Survival course. The staff were PEdO and PJIs. Apart from getting us to use the rudimentary treescape (watching the nylon cord melt before your eyes and 50 feet up), they had a recommended selection of 'must have' items such as a flint and steel, needle nose pincers, condoms, etc all, oddly enough available in the little shop in the coffee bar, they also recommended a .38 revolver, only £20.

I guess it was what is known as the Saturday Night Special in the States. I don't think any of us bought one but there it was - official recommendation and easy to acquire. How would that have stood up in UK later?

[coley chaos]

For those who wish to listen....his wife Sally is being interviewed at some point on Radio 2 this afternoon between 12.00 and 14.00 (Mr Vines show)

Coley

[Heathrow Harry]

lets be generous and say he only wanted a "souvenir"

suppose some small child had come across it or he had been burgled - it wouldn't be too good

If we are ungenerous we have a man with an unlicenced firearm in the UK who think he might need it some day....... to kill someone

I suspect the court got it just about right - he was damned lucky he didn't finish up with the Met Fire Arms squad breaking down his door at 06:00 and shooting him

[newt]

Just listened to the interview and to me this sounds like a right cock up from start to finish!

Its all well and good to use the "What if a child had found it" HH but that did not happen and by the sound of it could not have happened!

Someone I know was called to a neighbours house to help after the old chap had a suspected heart attack. He was astonished to see firearms from the second world war in the house. I believe they were all handed in for destruction and the case was not taken to court.

Surely this is what should have happened here? Just a little bit of commom sense and a word from his commanding officer should have done the trick!:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[airborne_artist]

Looking at the timeline the Glock was sent to Hereford (Credenhill actually) in/shortly after November 2007, and then to the house he was sharing (no date given).

His memory loss occurred in 2009 during the trek in Brazil.

There is therefore all of 2008 and a part of 2009 (before the trek) when the Glock was in his care and he knew all about it. Someone sharp enough to hold his rank in the Regiment really ought to have taken more care. He could at least have asked the RSM or similar what to do with it even if he didn't know the rules (which I find surprising).

"But the judge did not believe that he had no recollection of being in possession of the weapon" - which makes perfect sense, in my opinion.

[Pontius Navigator]

There is therefore all of 2008 and a part of 2009 (before the trek) when the Glock was in his care and he might have know all about it. .

Post 2009 he supposedly has no longer term memory of what happened in 2007. Now he mght have known, there again he might have forgotten. He might have intended to unpack his kit which he hadn't packed and then again we know he didn't.

It is surely unsafe to assume he would have known something when he apparently does not know it now.

[hval]

This is what I have hidden in my wardrobe. I only just remembered about them.


http://theshastalaker.com/image0077.jpg

[CoffmanStarter]

De rigueur for living in Glasgow ?


Hat, coat, scarf ... heading for the door :ok:

[hval]

CS,

No, the following (funnily enough these are in my other wardrobe) are what every fashionable youth carries in Glasgow.

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/images/localpeople/ugc-images/275776/Article/images/15097938/3510149.png

[si.]

It is surely unsafe to assume he would have known something when he
apparently does not know it now.


Quite correct. The burden of proof in criminal law is that it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and the fact that he was in possession of a weapon, would usually suffice for this. Then it would appear that defending council felt they would be unable to succesfully contest this, and therefore advised a guilty plea.

It's rather unfair passing the buck onto the arresting officer, for not using some discretion. It's a bit difficult offering words of advice, when the house has been raided and searched by a number of officers. We are not talking about a child having his catapult confiscated!

[racedo]

Hval
Great but still reckon the Girl Guides could take you....

[hval]

Racedo,

Oh no! Not the Girl Guides. They terrify me.

[Courtney Mil]

hval,

Thank God you arrived to bring some of your humour to the thread.:ok:

[PURPLE PITOT]

si, there is no burden of proof required here in that respect. Firearms offences are absolute, that is, no defence or mitigation.

If you are in possession of an unlicenced firearm, you are guilty, period.

I'm not saying it's just, but thats the way it is. There have been cases where people have disarmed armed intruders, only to get done for possession themselves. Nuts.

[Tiger_mate]

I have heard many people disbelieve that anyone would not unpack their boxes and therefore discover the present left by a third party. I was fortunate enough to get a home posting recently (March) after several years of unaccompanied tours during which time I aquired pretty much two sets of everything. I have not unpacked a single box since parking them in my garage and amongst the logic behind this is that I have neither need nor room inside the house for the kit. Happily I packed my own boxes (so no surprises for me) but for the record, I find his story of not being aware the gun was in a box a believeable one. A civilian on the other hand probably would not understand this.

It is clear that the system had its hands tied on this one with regard to bringing him to court, but I still feel that some discretion would have been a fairer outcome and that a suspended prison sentence to be just. It is clearly wrong to treat this man as one would a Moss-side drug dealer tooled up with intent. Has the petition not been started yet; for you can of course force a House of Commons debate on the matter.

[Tankertrashnav]

If he wanted to keep it, there are plenty of people that could have decommisioned it, certificated it and then he could have mounted it on his lounge wall if he wanted to.

I would strongly caution anyone who is currently in possession of an illegal firearm not to attempt to go down this route. There are a number of proof houses in the UK which issue deactivation certificates to enable people to buy what would otherwise be illegal firearms, but the weapons which they deal with dont just come in "off the street" but through legitimate sources (eg ex MOD surplus etc). Turn up with an illegal weapon and ask for it to be de-activated and you could end up in the sort of trouble faced by the subject of this thread, no matter how honourable your intentions

[Shack37]

Turn up with an illegal weapon and ask for it to be de-activated and you
could end up in the sort of trouble faced by the subject of this thread, no
matter how honourable your intentions.


Which presumably leaves only one option ie throw it away. Irresponsible but better than going to jail for doing the "right thing". If it's not traceable back to you, is found by the wrong person and used in a crime your a*se is covered. You may have to live with a twinge of conscience but at least you'll be free.

[parabellum]

, why was the Sgt still serving with the SAS if he had such an acute brain
injury or psychiatric problem?


He was involved in selection and training, from the little I know about SF they are like the Foreign Legion, they look after their own, no matter what.

As he didn't pack his own kit and hadn't unpacked it either he wasn't "knowingly" in possession of an unregistered firearm, would that make a difference?

[Lima Juliet]

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1170/1343/320/xray%20inmate.jpg

He could of got away with it doing this ^^^^^^

This is an Xray of a US inmate with a Desert Eagle hidden up his rectum! :eek:

"A guy gave me $100 to smuggle in the gun, and all was cool until the transport van hit a pothole," he said from his infirmary bed. "I realized then that I had a major problem."

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Clive Dunn, RIP

[Rick777]

And Europeans talk about stupid American gun laws!

[Wensleydale]

Which presumably leaves only one option ie throw it away. Irresponsible but
better than going to jail for doing the "right thing". If it's not traceable
back to you, is found by the wrong person and used in a crime your a*se is
covered. You may have to live with a twinge of conscience but at least you'll be
free.


There is another option which is to pack your own luggage and not to smuggle illegal fire-arms in the first place - as very well advertised at every oportunity during the tour overseas. This is becoming a "speeding ticket" argument where the miscreant blames everybody except himself. At the end of the day - if you can't do the time then don't do the crime - no matter how nice a chap you are and how well you do your job.

[gsa]

Which presumably leaves only one option ie throw it away. Irresponsible but better than going to jail for doing the "right thing".

Not really, the police get quite a few handguns handed in and no one gets locked up for doing it, it's when your caught with it that they kick off.

[Courtney Mil]

gsa,

Did you miss something in this thread?

[parabellum]

Wensleydale - If the reports so far are to be believed this Sgt didn't pack his own kit as he thought he was going back, he didn't so his mates packed his kit, he wasn't able to and hadn't unpacked it when it arrived back in UK, not uncommon as others have attested here, so he didn't knowingly smuggle the weapon into the UK and if he didn't know it was in his kit was he 'in possession'? I agree he was given it, he did own it, but he wasn't 'knowingly' in possession was he, so did he commit a crime?

Maybe you can answer the question I raised earlier:

As he didn't pack his own kit and hadn't unpacked it either he wasn't
"knowingly" in possession of an unregistered firearm, would that make a
difference?


The people who do surprise me are his mates who packed his kit and left the Glock in with the rest, if they recognised it as such.

[PURPLE PITOT]

Perhaps i am not adequately explaining the principle of an "absolute" offence.

The section of the firearms act that pertains to illegal possession, is absolute.
No defence, no mitigation.

If the weapon is in your possession, you are guilty. Period. The civil courts have their hands tied.

[Tankertrashnav]

Re handing in guns v throwing them away, certainly the best course of action if you innocently come into possession of an illegal firearm (say clearing the house which you've inherited from your recently deceased grandfather) is to contact the police and arrange for it to be handed in. I'd contact the police HQ and speak to their firearms people first rather than just turning up at the local cop shop and plonking it down on the counter.

It may hurt handing over a highly desirable broom-handled Mauser, for example, but as the alternative could be five years in the pokey it's the only sensible decision.

I once innocently came into possession of a box of WW2 period .38 ammunition tucked away down at the bottom of the small pack in a set of webbing I had bought. I thought about handing it in but I didn't want the hassle, so it now resides at the bottom of Falmouth harbour. Illegal action, I know, but I reckon it is pretty safe where it is. Silly though.

(PS I'd be grateful if nobody shopped me ;))

[Trim Stab]

The people who do surprise me are his mates who packed his kit and left the Glock in with the rest, if they recognised it as such.

If that had happened, his mates would have owned up.

[lj101]

Different forces, different rules

Suffolk Constabulary: Disposal of firearms and ammunition (http://www.suffolk.police.uk/aboutus/ourservices/firearmslicensing/disposaloffirearms.aspx)

Are you worried that you are in possession of something you shouldn’t have and have concerns about handing it in to the police?

We receive many guns, ammunition, knives, swords and other weapons. If you make the effort to hand them in you will have acted responsibly and no action will be taken against you. If you retain something you shouldn’t have then you risk prosecution.

Please don’t throw weapons away, as they could end up in the wrong hands. Help make Suffolk safer and hand them in!

[lj101]

Or the occasional amnesty

A month-long gun amnesty designed to cut armed crime and gang culture is proving a "substantial success", Home Secretary David Blunkett told MPs today.
He said rocket launchers and hand grenades were among more than 7,000 weapons handed over to the police since March 31.
Mr Blunkett said: "The gun amnesty has been a substantial success. At April 23, the police had taken in 7,216 guns and 483,000 rounds of ammunition.
"In the West Midlands and South Wales they have taken in rocket launchers. In Cumbria they have taken in hand grenades.
"We believe the fact that these weapons are not available for use by criminals is a great success."
Under the scheme, people holding illicit firearms and ammunition can hand them over to police without facing prosecution for possession of an illegal weapon.
It was launched ahead of the introduction of tough new sentences for illegal possession, which will see a minimum five-year sentence for those convicted.
The amnesty was agreed by police and Government at a round table meeting with community representatives in January, chaired by Mr Blunkett, shortly after the murders of two teenage girls outside a New Year party in Birmingham.
The last national firearms amnesty in 1996, following the massacre of schoolchildren at Dunblane, saw 23,000 firearms and 700,000 rounds of ammunition surrendered.

The real world.

[Shack37]

TTN
Re handing in guns v throwing them away, certainly the best course of action if you innocently come into possession of an illegal firearm (say clearing the house which you've inherited from your recently deceased grandfather) is to contact the police and arrange for it to be handed in. I'd contact the police HQ and speak to their firearms people first rather than just turning up at the local cop shop and plonking it down on the counter.

I agree this would be the right and responsible action but in doing so you have put yourself at the mercy of the police officer's interpretation of this "unequivocal and clear cut" law. You came into posession of the weapon quite innocently but you are still "in posession" of an illegal firearm.

Catch 22 refers.

[hval]

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

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."
The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.
"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.
Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.
He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".
Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"
To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."
Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.
He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.
"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.
"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"
Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.
Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

Oh yes, this gentleman got a suspended prison term.

[OmegaV6]

hval

I think you'll find, if you do some research .. that he actually had the weapon at home for 4 days before handing it in, which is probably why his ORIGINAL sentence was 5 years, reduced on appeal.

Already covered way up the thread ....posts #31 and #36 :)

[Shack37]

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there
is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."


So, what's the answer? Don't be a hero, throw it away.

A question on the case quoted:
Suppose Mr. Clarke left the "bin liner" untouched in his garden and it was later found by someone else to contain the weapon. This someone else calls the police to report what he has found.

Who is guilty of posessing the firearm?
a)Mr. Clarke because the thing is on his property.
b)The "bystander" who called the police? (as the current posessor)
c)All of the above?

Neither of them appears to have a defence, no mitigation, no excuse.
Maybe this law is too Absolute.

[Alexander.Yakovlev]

Are you smoking Shack? Of course the bystander has a defence! Blimey...

[GrahamO]

If it hadn't been a gun, but was instead say, a kilo of heroin, would the defence have been any different ?

And how would a subsequent court case be affected by a lenient sentence under the guise of 'sorry, someone else must have packed it and I had not noticed it' ? I cannot imagine the Border control guys being happy with people being free to use the 'oops how did that get there' excuse and be excused.

Should anyone coming into the UK via the Channel Tunnel carrying an illegal firearm be treated more or less harshly than this circumstance ?

Difficult questions.

[Pontius Navigator]

If it was in your garden but found by a third party then you are in possession, rather like the OP. The onus would then be on you to prove that you had no knowledge of the weapon, had never handled it, and were not in possession.

[goudie]

Voice of reason at last.

SAS veterans ask PM to intervene over "monstrous" jailing of war hero - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9677834/SAS-veterans-ask-PM-to-intervene-over-monstrous-jailing-of-war-hero.html)

[Satellite_Driver]

The transcript of the Court Martial is now available:

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

Charge 2 is interesting, and doesn't seem to have been mentioned in any of the previous media reports. Having a pistol is one thing; having 330+ rounds of assorted ammunition is another.

[Shack37]

Are you smoking Shack? Of course the bystander has a defence! Blimey...


OK, for the hard of understanding....for bystander read A.N. Other who handles the binbag, otherwise how would he/she know it was a firearm? Police arrive and responsible citizen (bystander) says "there you go mate, have a shotgun"

If it was in your garden but found by a third party then you are in
possession, rather like the OP. The onus would then be on you to prove that you had no knowledge of the weapon, had never handled it, and were not in possession.


PN.....even better. Ned the crim has just robbed the local Post Office and as he legs it through the estate side streets, casually drops his sawn-off in your garden. It is not found for some time. The onus is now on you to prove you were not in posession but it's on your property.
It has been emphasised to death that this is an absolute offence ie NO mitigation, NO defence.

[Courtney Mil]

Goodness. It's not like PPRuNers to create 5 pages of judgement without having the full facts.

[parabellum]

Interesting, not dismissed the service and not reduced in rank and sentence likely to be served in a military institution, presumably MCTC Colchester. Hopefully sentence soon to be suspended.

[Tashengurt]

There could only ever be one outcome in this case. Literally indefensible.

[Whenurhappy]

The Transcript of the CM makes very interesting reading (and Thanks Satellite Driver for posting this) - the weapon was not in some box in the garage or loft - it was in its case in his wardrobe - with ammunition of assorted types, including 9 mm rounds, under his bed. I do wonder why he was presented with a new weapon on departure from Theatre - forensics showed that it had not been fired. Seems a strange 'trophy', but this was not the matter before the Board. All in all, I believe that the JA and the Board were sympathetic in what was clearly a very serious matter, with little 'wiggle room'.

Separately, I am disappointed (again) with the Daily Mailygraph for their poor reporting. The Sgt has not be 'betrayed by the Army'; the findings and the JA Summary speaks to this point. Either the journo didn't check his facts, or (worse) chose to be selective to distort the findings of the Board to embarras the government, the MOD and the Army. I shall write a stiff letter to them now!

[Pontius Navigator]

A journalist selective with his facts? Or an editor short of space missing out a line or two? Surely not.

As said elsewhere, our BBC is a staunch bastion of the truth and our gentlement of the press are no less.

[Training Risky]

I have just read the complete transcript and it is abundantly clear that this was a case of march the guilty b*stard in for sentencing. (And I write this as someone who has actually run an orderly room to hear airmens' trangressions in the past.)

I find it bl**dy appalling that it wasn't within the judge's gift to give Nightingale a suspended sentence given his service record.

Whereas, just because Margaret Moran is a bit depressed, she avoids jail completely!Ex-Labour MP Margaret Moran convicted by a jury of £60k expenses fiddle | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232321/Ex-Labour-MP-Margaret-Moran-convicted-jury-60k-expenses-fiddle.html)

Why do we bother serving at all - we just get shafted at the end of it anyway, whether it's the law, pensions, Gulf War Syndrome, or losing a limb or two.:mad::mad:

[airsound]

Mrs Nightingale live on Radio Five Live now

airsound

[JFZ90]

The transcript is interesting, as said above it was clearly in his house, with ammo under the bed.

It is clear that the court is most concerned with the risk this poses - easy enough for a thief to break and get the gun and ammo. This is as opposed to any suggestion of wrong doing with the weapon which is never hinted at. This recklessness is made worse by the fact that it appears it could easily have been stored safely under different arrangements, but he seemingly chose not to.

It is interesting that he was however in the mess before his serious memory loss - it seems clear that the risk was quite different (lower) when the gun was in the mess, though they point out that even there keeping armour piecing rounds in the mess would not exactly be taken lightly. So there is further mitigation here, as before 2009 the risks were different and not so serious.

It seems that there was another Sgt involved, who had kept a gun (not in a box) in his garage, along with a live hand grenade only secured with its pin. This is perhaps another level of recklessness.

So, whilst I actually think it is very harsh to give him any sentence, I can also see how it is difficult to be seen to tolerate such lapses in care with firearms. They clearly worked hard to ensure he didn't loose pension etc.

That said I can also see the frustration that he appears to be getting a rougher ride than e.g. Abu Qatada - and makes you wonder whether some form of internal bollocking of sufficient severity would have been possible (and perhaps a fairer outcome).

[Pontius Navigator]

JFZ, the problem with an internal bollocking is the lack of message to others of a like mind.

I am sure we all know of internal bollockings where only those immediately involved ever know what has gone on. Even the fact and results of courts martial tend to be quite secretive unless the press get involved. We have all seen those cryptic SROs that state X was found guilty of an offence under section of the AFA and sentenced to . . . subject to confirmation . . .

Unless the crime and punishment are published then future potential wrong doers remain unaware and undetered.

[goudie]

Unless the crime and punishment are published then future potential wrong doers remain unaware and undeterred.

Fair comment but a suspended sentence would, many believe, been a fairer outcome, especially when compared with other recent judicial findings mentioned here.

[Pontius Navigator]

Goudie, I am not sure of the efficacy of suspended sentences. The convict is at ransom to good behaviour but to the observer there is the undeniable feeling that 'he got off'. To future offenders will occur the thought 'if I get caught I won't get sent to prison.'

Only a custodial sentence, duly publicised, will have a deterrent effect. A reduced sentence of course has its own message, one of which is don't presume you would also get a reduced sentence.

[Canadian Break]

Gents; I have briefly scanned the 5 pages of this thread and I think I have to agree that the guy got his just deserts. However, I have heard over the last week of 2 MPs, both of whom have been found to have swindled the allowances system out of over £50K and neither of whom will be prosecuted. In one case the Met - it was reported - decided not to press charges and in the other charges were not pressed because of the alledged "ill health" of the perp. So, if you were to ask me now how I view the sentence of the Hereford guy I would have to say he has every reason to feel ill-done to. However, perhaps I am just a bit old fashioned when I expect people in positions of responsibility to set the example. Anyway, just remember that if you are ever in the unfortunate position of being accused of fraudulently obtaining money from HM the Q just tell them you are not feeling well. If that fails then simply offer to pay it all back. If that fails then get your brief to claim precedent! Sorry, but terminal cynicism has set in. Stay safe everyone wherever you are. CB.

[parabellum]

A poster over on Arrse is suggesting that the guilty plea was coerced as Sgt Nightingale was not entitled to legal aid, had to use his own funds, (including pledging a part of his pension), was concerned that a 'no guilty' plea would financially ruin him so took the cheaper route and pleaded guilty.

Interesting if true.

[JFZ90]

A poster over on Arrse is suggesting that the guilty plea was coerced as Sgt Nightingale was not entitled to legal aid, had to use his own funds, (including pledging a part of his pension), was concerned that a 'no guilty' plea would financially ruin him so took the cheaper route and pleaded guilty.

Interesting if true.

If you read the link in #84, you'll see this point is discussed by the judge - I think it suggests he could have had legal aid, but chose to fund it himself.

Also interesting that the para above the "legal aid" part discusses how he invented a new type of medical dressing that has been named after him - worthy stuff.

When you consider the type of picture this builds of the character - noting that its not easy to form a reliable view - incarceration of such an individual does seem rather inappropriate.

[airpolice]

Don't lose sight of the fact that a guilty plea avoids giving evidence and therefore means no awkward questions to be answered.

[AR1]

A US Marine I know whilst serving in the UK was victim of another colleague who (trying to work his ticket home) brought a hand grenade round to said Marine corporals married quarter. Sometime after the collague had left, with the advice to 'hand it in' the marine found the HG down the side of his MOD issue settee.
Torn between shopping his buddy, and fearful of taking it back himself, he did what every INsane person would have done. He detonated it off a cliff near Newquay.
Missing grenade was picked up during and audit, and with the Captain breathing fire the original culprit coughed to having taken it. Then told them it was at Cpl xxxxxxxs house. Of course it could no longer be proven that it had been detonated and the Cpls wife and sister who were present were brought onto base for interview.
Original culprit - returned to USA, Cpl busted to PFC. And thats it sorted.

[fawkes]

Whilst only a heartless so and so would be without sympathy for the Sgt's position, there are a number of things that don't stack up here.

At a Court Martial the accused is entitled to free legal reprsentatioin by a trained service barrister - he chose a civilian and he chose to fund it: he also accepted advice to plead guilty and should have appreciated that a deterrent custodial sentence was almost inevitale. Whatever one thinks about the Law, what Nightingale fought for was to uphold it. There ought to be one law for Scrotes and another for heroes, but it doesn't work like that. In order to catch the scrotes, those without criminal intent are caught in the net too. If you want to blame somebody, blame his mates, who may have known that he had the weapon and ammunition [NB including AP rounds] and did nothing to help. NB the MPs didn't plead guilty.

The references in the Defence to the other case (that of his flatmate - also for posession of weaponsand ammunition) suggst that there may have been other charges in relation to possible connection with these offences that were dropped. Was he, perhaps, the armouer and having covered for others couldn't dispose of the ammunition properly without landing himself in the stuck? The point is that ony the learned judge has the full picture of this, and speculation here is unhelpful.

What this goes to show is a rather cavalier attitude towards firearms by this particular organisation; I am not sure what that says about their attitude towards other rules and regulations (especially about the safety of others). Pilots, Officers of the watch, Nuclear Engineers, Air Engineers, Air Traffic Controllers, (come to think of it Chefs and Drivers) all follow rules.

One can only hope that he can appeal against the severity of the sentece - and it may well be that he should have been invalided out of the Service following his brain injury and that his unreliable memory may have been the cause of flawed choices in his own defence. If his appeal is successful then the deterrent effect of his sntence for a serious offence stands but his suffering is cut short. I suspect that should be the way to go.

[baffman]

Good post, Fawkes.

Everyone (or almost everyone) has considerable sympathy for Sgt Nightingale, as do I.

Many of us, including myself who was far from SF, have experienced the mismatch between the weaponry which were a constant part of our lives while deployed, and the situation once returned home.

I've briefly had a wagon full of captured weapons, and am still sad that I couldn't even take them back to the regimental museum, but that's the way it goes. I've been presented with a weapon too, but I knew I couldn't keep it.

Presumably RAF types don't routinely take their bombed-up Tonkas back to the MQ.

My main feeling on reading the transcript was "There but for the grace of God".

Like many others I wish Sgt Nightingale the very best for an appeal against sentence, and for his future career. On what I have seen so far, I honestly don't really see it as a betrayal of heroes.

[parabellum]

At a Court Martial the accused is entitled to free legal reprsentatioin by a
trained service barrister - he chose a civilian and he chose to fund it:


According to some of the posts over on Arrse that is not so. According to them, due to recent rule changes, he was not entitled to Legal Aid, I'm only the messenger and have no up to date knowledge myself.

This linkcertainly suggests he could have had free legal representation:

Ministry of Defence | About Defence | What we do | Legal | Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority (AFCLAA) (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Legal/ArmedForcesCriminalLegalAidAuthorityafclaa.htm)

[cuefaye]

Goodness. It's not like PPRuNers to create 5 pages of judgement without
having the full facts.


Posts 33,36,39,58,69 refer. If the cap fits --

[AvionicToad]

Sergeant Danny Nightingale: the making of an SAS hero - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9685293/Sergeant-Danny-Nightingale-the-making-of-an-SAS-hero.html)

Jailed SAS war hero to be reunited with wife in prison visit - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9685150/Jailed-SAS-war-hero-to-be-reunited-with-wife-in-prison-visit.html)

Wife of jailed SAS hero appeals to Prime Minister for help - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9685304/Wife-of-jailed-SAS-hero-appeals-to-Prime-Minister-for-help.html)

SAS Commander pays tribute to jailed hero - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9685195/SAS-Commander-pays-tribute-to-jailed-hero.html)

. The telegraph seems to be updating and adding to this story almost hourly.

[AvionicToad]

Sally Nightingale's letter to David Cameron - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9685492/Sally-Nightingales-letter-to-David-Cameron.html)

[Blacksheep]

A friend of mine (now deceased) was a hostage during the Brunei rebellion. After being released by the Gurkhas, like many expats working on the oilfield, he armed himself with a .38 automatic pistol. Upon returning home the pistol ended up in a box in his attic. He bought and ran a general store and sub-post office and one day he sacked an assistant who he caught stealing cigarettes. She reported him to the police for some offence or other and when they exercised the search warrant they found the long forgotten pistol. He was charged for possession of an unlicensed firearm and upon conviction he was fined £200. Thats a a lot of money in 1989 but long way from a stiff term of imprisonment and the end of a career.

[Heathrow Harry]

times have changed - if you are going to hide a gun and ammo then you should check on the potential consequences

I find it strange that anyone would WANT a gun around the place - you don't find people smuggling a Lightning into their garage on completeion of service do you??

[500N]

Two questions to everyone.

IF the container had been left at the Hereford base, would this have been
classed the same offense as he was charged withn or as it was on defense property, a different charge ?


Seems to be a fair bit in the media, letters etc. Is this generating a groundswell
of support in the general public or will it die if nothing is done soon ?
.

[cuefaye]

Please amend your questions in order that they can be answered.

[airpolice]

500, read the transcript of the CM. The Ammo is not from Afghanistan, he collected that later.

The offence was committed out there when he failed to hand the gun in the day he "was given" it.

His alleged memory loss is not relevant to any of this. He deserves to be punished for keeping an unlawful weapon on camp, whatever camp that is.

When you take all of his stories into account, and add to it the fact that he plead guilty (which avoids giving evidence and a cross examination) you should be able to see why the court thought a custodial disposal was appropriate.

The groundswell of public opinion is less informed than the court. I suspect that you will find that when you explain the Ammo and the timeframe to Joe Public, the support dies down a bit.

[500N]

Airpolice

Thank you - I may have missed if the information you presented
was posted previously but your summary sums it up perfectly
and as I thought re handing in the weapon.

[cuefaye]

airpolice

Initially that was also my view. But having read and re-read the CM transcript, I form the view that the finding is, whilst just in strict interpretation of the law (and some may say that is all that matters), it is callous and almost dismissive of the medical evidence. I know that the JA gave some regard to the latter, but in comparison to the weight given to the medical circumstances relating to the recent case involving a MP, his ruling could be regarded as atomic. At first I was emotive over the issue, but felt inclined to the rule of law: as the days pass, I'm increasingly convinced otherwise. The man should be released, admonished, and allowed to continue to serve. That said, his case should be presented as a reminder to all of its unlawfulness. His circumstances are somewhat unique.

[parabellum]

and the end of a career.


Hopefully not since he keeps his rank and has avoided being dismissed the service, which seems quite unique to me.

[SOSL]

“Jailed SAS soldier could be freed by Christmas as case is fast tracked”.

Well, good for him, and deep respect to his wife, Sally; she managed to get the prime minister on side.

However what effect will it have on our, highly valued and “absolute” gun laws if a senior politician can, by “lending his weight to the case”, cause the most senior judge in the country to effectively bypass the normal system, to which the rest of us are subject?

How often does the Lord Chief Justice preside on a case involving a detainee in MCTC?

Depending on the outcome of the full hearing this could in some way restore the possibly dented morale of the Special Forces or it could make a serious dent in the effectiveness of our gun laws.

Whatever the outcome, is anyone going to take the case of ex-soldier Paul Clarke to the prime minister?

Rgds SOS

[Lima Juliet]

My "B0-LL-0X" caption is still lit on this one...

Sgt Nightingale was given the pistol, a Glock 9mm, as a gift by Iraqi soldiers he helped train in 2009. It was shipped back to the UK by military authorities when he left the country that year. His family say that a brain injury he subsequently suffered on a charity run in Brazil affected his memory, contributing to his failure to have the weapon decommissioned, as he had planned. The weapon and the ammunition were found during a search of his Service accommodation because of a complaint that had been made about another SAS soldier.

If you planned to decommission the weapon then why keep several hundred rounds of ammunition - some of which could be fired in the Glock and some of which was that frangible stuff that really makes a nasty wound? Furthermore, there was Armour Piercing (AP) rounds found at his home as well. AP rounds are particulaly effective against body armour and if that fell into the wrong hands it could render Police body armour ineffective.

Prohibited items found at Sgt Nightingale's address
1x Glock 9mm pistol
122 x 9mm live rounds of ammunition
50 x 9mm frangible rounds of ammunition
40 x 7.62mm live rounds of ammunition
50 x 338 armour piercing live rounds of ammunition
2 x .308 live rounds of ammunition
74 x 5.56mm live rounds of ammunition

Hardly a "few trinkets and souvenirs" is it? :=

Nope, the guy IMHO got what he deserved - you just don't bring guns and ammo home from work. I just hope that the Prime Minister hasn't just linked himself to a swell of public outcry without knowing the full facts...

LJ

[Red Line Entry]

Nothing wrong with fast tracking an appeal to get it to court. However, once it's there, it's up to the judicial system to decide the outcome - not politicians, not the public, not anyone else with a passing acquaintance of the facts.

It will be interesting to see the outcome.

[Easy Street]

Dear oh dear. If the info above about the ammunition is legit then he should consider himself damn lucky to have only got 18 months in the glasshouse, where one presumes that he would have got a degree of sympathy from the staff. By appealing he runs the risk of getting longer in a civilian prison, surely?

[PlasticCabDriver]

I also did 17 years, and actually have a Firearms Certificate, but if plod, for whatever reason, searched my house and found weapons and/or ammunition that were not on the licence, no matter why I had them or whether I could remember having them or not, I could expect to go to prison for a long time.

Clearly, in terms of op experience or even 'service to my country' I am not in the same league as Sgt Nightingale, but the law remains the same for all. Unlawful possession of a firearm is a strict liability offence, to which there is virtually no defence. The onus is on the accused to prove that it is not theirs and they could not reasonably have known about it. The CM/JA did not accept that his memory loss was sufficient mitigation for retaining possession of the firearm in his private accommodation:

"We consider that during this move you would have clearly recalled both the pistol and ammunition but no doubt placed it very low on your list of things to sort out due to being so busy." Being low on ones priority list is, in this case, no defence at all.

Whether this should even have made it to a CM is a highly debatable issue. but the powers that be decided that it should, so, given that "...parliament has decreed that in relation to Charge 1, that a minimum period of 5 years imprisonment is mandatory unless there are exceptional circumstances...", I think he was dealt with reasonably fairly, especially as he was not even reduced in rank, let alone dismissed the service.

Nonetheless, I hope his appeal against his sentence is successful and this experienced and brave soldier can resume his career quickly.

[teeteringhead]

Dear oh dear. If the info above about the ammunition is legit ... indeed it is - from the CM transcript which is in the public domain, and linked to earlier in the thread. I suspect most of the journos haven't read it - one wonders if "call me Dave" has. Edited to add: Link to transcript is at post #84.

A technical question on MCTC. If one were sentenced to 18 months inside in a civvy prison, one would have the reasonable expectation of serving only 9, with 4 or 5 months of that "on the out" but tagged. Does that apply?

And it isn't "career terminal" either. Danny N has not been reduced in rank, nor will he be discharged on completion of sentence, both of which would normally happen.

[baffman]

...A technical question on MCTC. If one were sentenced to 18 months inside in a civvy prison, one would have the reasonable expectation of serving only 9, with 4 or 5 months of that "on the out" but tagged. Does that apply?Yes, MCTC does operate a remission system under Armed Forces Act 2006. The calculation includes both 'Automatic Remission' and 'Earned Remission', but I haven't done the maths to compare it directly with the civilian system.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I read the transcript with interest, noting the following:

The media have totally misrepresented this one.

It turns out I am quite well acquainted with the Board President. It would be difficult to meet a more reasonable and intelligent man.

The time the gun spent in the Iraq box was effectively dismissed. They picked upon the fact that he must have been aware of its existence when he transferred it to a different hiding place some time later.

It was the ammo they were most concerned about in terms of knowingly breaching regulations, and the fact that all the items were stored insecurely, so any casual thief could have obtained them.

"Parliament has decreed" the required minimum sentence was 5 years except in exceptional circumstances. The board found enough exceptional circumstances to award him 18 months, and no reduction in rank or dismissed the Service.

I would suggest that the Board used all the wiggle room they had in sentencing. Use of the phrase "Parliament has decreed" might be a way of saying "Over to you, LCJ"

[Biggles78]

If we are ungenerous we have a man with an unlicenced firearm in the UK who think he might need it some day....... to kill someone


Oh give us a break. If an 11 year SAS veteran wanted to kill you, he has several dozen different ways than to use a handgun. I would rather face a thug with that glock than an SAS veteran. Better chance of survival against the glock.

"We sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to bring violence upon those who would do us harm." I wish to sincerely thank those "rough" men. Maybe all those pussies who have condemned this man should go on the selection course and see what metal those who make the grade possess.

Another case of BOHICA by a REMF. :ugh: I hope he receives justice soon. NOTE: there is a massive difference between justice and the legal system.

[Lima Juliet]

Biggles

You are wrong.

There was never a word stating that Sgt Nightingale would use his "trinkets" against the general populace. However, the way that he possessed and stored them was illegal. It only takes a small child or a burglar to discover these "trinkets" and it doesn't take the brains of an Archbishop to work out what might happen next.

I have been around plenty that have passed selection and they "play by big boys rules" with an incerdible amount of trust placed on all in that environment regarding weapons. However, I believe that this individual abused that trust, did something incredibly stupid and has got away lightly compared to the recommended sentence of 5 years for having an illegal Glock and ~400 rounds of assorted 'military-only grade' live ammunition.

With a bit of luck he'll only do 30% of his sentence for being a good boy and them everyone can move on. However, there is no doubt in my mind, and many others, that he messed up and did something incredibly stupid and deserves to be punished for it regardless of what he has done in the past.

LJ

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

..and furthermore, the Board President is not a REMF.

Go read the transcript. It's very clear as to what Sgt Nightingale was sentenced for. The time the Glock spent in the box from Iraq was totally discounted.

[teeteringhead]

Go read the transcript. Should be a mandatory action before comment here, in the Press, or from Downing Street.

Danny N screwed up, has been suitably punished (pour encourager les autres) and will be back on duty by next Christmas.

[SOSL]

The law is the law. I have some sympathy for him, but didn't he get off lightly!

Rgds SOS

[Trim Stab]

I expect UKSF are furious about the way in which the media and now PM have become involved in this.

Normal procedure if civil police get involved in anything at Hereford (even for something trivial like an unpaid parking ticket, or no TV licence) is that the miscreant gets an immediate RTU, in part so that the admin has to be dealt with by the parent regiment. This incident was clearly too severe for this and I expect the CO was fuming, even before his judgement was effectively questioned by the media and now by the PM.

IMO he was dealt with fairly and indeed got off quite lightly. Seems he has not even been discharged from the Army, and will be allowed to resume his career (albeit with his parent regiment). Indeed, that is what his fellow lags will call "a result".

On another matter, having read the transcript, I'm surprised parts of it weren't censored. They even published the street address of his accommodation.

[Nomorefreetime]

Have a look on Youtube. 'Jack Dee SAS'.

Seems to sum up a lot, what the average person believes across t'web on this case

[JFZ90]

sentence suspended....just on bbc

[airpolice]

An SAS soldier detained for 18 months for illegally possessing a pistol and ammunition has won his freedom at the Court of Appeal.

Sgt Danny Nightingale, 37, from Crewe, admitted possessing the 9mm Glock pistol and 338 rounds of ammunition at a court martial earlier this month.

Judges at the Court of Appeal reduced Nightingale's sentence to 12 months.

However, they suspended the sentence and said he could be released immediately.

The weapons and ammunition were recovered by police from Nightingale's Army accommodation near Hereford.

Nightingale's wife Sally, 38, cried when the verdict was delivered and when asked if she was "thrilled" she nodded.

Before the appeal hearing in London, she said over 106,000 people had signed a petition calling for her husband to be released.

[Lima Juliet]

I wonder if the RAF officer nicked in his home for having live ammunition and no weapon about 5 years ago will seek wrongful treatment, dismissal and go for compensation? He had also been working in a similar 'big boys' environment. I also wonder if this will be used as legal precedent by lawyers defending civvys caught with guns and ammo?

Hmmm...I wonder...

[parabellum]

I also wonder if this will be used as legal precedent by lawyers
defending civvys caught with guns and ammo?

Hmmm...I wonder...


Wouldn't all the other circumstances need to be identical?

[Lima Juliet]

Wouldn't all the other circumstances need to be identical?

Nope!.......

[parabellum]

The way I read it was that the mitigating circumstances got him out, he is still guilty, as charged.