Was this really the only way of dealing with this...?
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Voice of reason at last.
SAS veterans ask PM to intervene over "monstrous" jailing of war hero - Telegraph
SAS veterans ask PM to intervene over "monstrous" jailing of war hero - Telegraph
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The transcript of the Court Martial is now available:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...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.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you smoking Shack? Of course the bystander has a defence! Blimey...
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.
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.
It has been emphasised to death that this is an absolute offence ie NO mitigation, NO defence.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
As said elsewhere, our BBC is a staunch bastion of the truth and our gentlement of the press are no less.
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!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.
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!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.
Last edited by Training Risky; 15th Nov 2012 at 08:34.
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).
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).
Last edited by JFZ90; 15th Nov 2012 at 09:17.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Unless the crime and punishment are published then future potential wrong doers remain unaware and undeterred.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
One rule for one and another for the others
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.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Interesting if true.
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.
Interesting if true.
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.
Last edited by JFZ90; 15th Nov 2012 at 20:59.