Whenurhappy
I'm not sure you've interpreted my meaning correctly and I apologise if I've not been clear. I've already said I believe the Sergeant guilty of wrongdoing; and specifically said I don't think there was political interference. While entirely possible, I think Sir Gerald Howarth's statement today reveals they took a wait and see approach.
I also believe there were extenuating circumstances in this case that simply do not apply outwith the Military arena. But being sympathetic to his plight does not mean I think him innocent.
I concede my personal experience is limited in such things. But I always remember the first time I attended the High Court of Appeal - training and familiarisation. (I haven't always been an engineer!) It so happened a soldier was appealing his sentence (not conviction) for something he'd done while recovering from serious wounds received in NI. He'd been gaoled for 4 years. The three Lords, Stott, Robertson and one other I can't recall, took all of 2 minutes to replace the sentence with a £200 fine, which his Commanding Officer paid there and then. About 4 months wages to me at the time and it sounded a lot! Lord Robertson was very robust in his decision, something along the lines of "No ordinary person can know what the soldier has gone through". I have a sneaky feeling he'd have something similar to say today. Lord Stott even more so. That doesn't mean they were soft on crime; but they did come from a generation who appreciated the Military far more. Today, it has few friends in the Establishment.