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

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]

Capital

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 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!

[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 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.