Soldier rally for jailed marine?
Are new recruits to HM Forces no longer taught about Military Law? I remember that I was issued with MAFL, the Manual of Air Force Law, and we were taken through every dog-eared page, every pasted in amendment. My overwhelming reaction to this incident as reported was that it could have taken its place in that book as one of the many examples of action contrary to military law alongside; the accused then threw down his rifle, saying "I shall no longer serve for you", or words to that effect.
We may empathise with Sgt Blackman, we may even feel that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with him, and that if we had stood in his boots we might well have done the same thing. If so we would have acted contrary to Military Law and should then have been prepared to take the same rap that he did.
Being a member of HM Forces brings great responsibility no matter where you are in the CoC. Let those responsibilities slide, no matter be yea high or low, and it becomes very very difficult to regain the lost ground. That was the whole point of that battered book.
We may empathise with Sgt Blackman, we may even feel that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with him, and that if we had stood in his boots we might well have done the same thing. If so we would have acted contrary to Military Law and should then have been prepared to take the same rap that he did.
Being a member of HM Forces brings great responsibility no matter where you are in the CoC. Let those responsibilities slide, no matter be yea high or low, and it becomes very very difficult to regain the lost ground. That was the whole point of that battered book.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 29th Oct 2015 at 08:49.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had this been an enemy combatant who had killed a British soldier under identical circumstances, however much pressure he'd been under, would we be rallying for, listening to or even tolerating these arguments?
When the Daily Mail launched the original campaign it was over the conduct of the court martial. Neither the prosecution or defence lawyers mentioned the alternative of manslaughter. Also a senior officer was not allowed to give evidence on Sgt. Blackman's behalf. They raised over £800,000 for his defence and there is now a new defence team.
mmitch.
mmitch.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Killing someone outside of those conditions removes the act of killing from the protection that the State offers. Admitting that you recognise what you are doing is wrong hardly helps your defence and brings into question your judgement and fitness to carry out the job given to you.
I believe any appeal in this matter would depend on whether former Royal Marine Sgt Blackman's state of mind was correct. A positive outcome will pose many questions about how we can expect Service personnel to behave, and whether military discipline is worth a hill of beans.
Although I have made myself uniquely unpopular with some old friends on this matter by not joining in the "Free Sgt Blackman" campaign, it is worth noting that more recently, a single mum was given 2 1/2 years for targeting a paedophile, with whom she had no connection, and stabbing him to death with a knife she brought from home for that specific purpose.
Given that this is a legal issue, and the law seems to have some flexibility on the sentencing, for this reason and no other, I fully support the (mainly ex) Marines and Paras who turned out to lobby the issue. It is their right to do so.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yeovil
Age: 53
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several things erk me about this whole affair. During my 5 tours in KAF I was not allowed a camera on the flight line, and quite rightly so. Yet the fighting soldier is allowed to film anything and everything he pleases? Arguably, if his oppo hadnt filmed him, this would probably never have been raised as an issue, let alone a court case.
Also, why did his oppo keep the film when it was clear that there were possible implications with respect to Marine A's actions. Cheers mate!
The bottom line is clear. He did wrong, and admitted on camera that he had done wrong. Sofa-typers on here can argue all they like about his state of mind, but I suggest that a large proportion of us have absolutely no idea, either way, about what it is like being in that situation. Would I like to see him get off? Sure. However the Geneva Convention is what separates us from the uncivilised scum of the earth/battlefield, and we receive mandatory lectures every year on LoAC. Whether we should adhere to the Geneva Convention of the enemy doesn't is open for debate............
Also, why did his oppo keep the film when it was clear that there were possible implications with respect to Marine A's actions. Cheers mate!
The bottom line is clear. He did wrong, and admitted on camera that he had done wrong. Sofa-typers on here can argue all they like about his state of mind, but I suggest that a large proportion of us have absolutely no idea, either way, about what it is like being in that situation. Would I like to see him get off? Sure. However the Geneva Convention is what separates us from the uncivilised scum of the earth/battlefield, and we receive mandatory lectures every year on LoAC. Whether we should adhere to the Geneva Convention of the enemy doesn't is open for debate............
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two of the best posts on this thread so far. Thanks chaps.
As a former 'grunt' (albeit with two stripes at the time) on active service, I witnessed a couple of things that are NOT discussed outside of our circle.
While I in no way condone the Sergeant's actions, the clown that recorded the incident and showed it around will ultimately be answerable for such stupidity.
For my liking, there have been too many posts on here from people who have little or no experience of what it's like to spend months (or longer)
on the ground dealing with a fanatical, unprincipled and barbaric enemy.
The high moral ground is no good to you if you and your mates are dead.
The high moral ground is for those sipping chardonnay in the dining-room of 'The Club' and those tut-tutting over their morning newspaper and croissants.
As a former 'grunt' (albeit with two stripes at the time) on active service, I witnessed a couple of things that are NOT discussed outside of our circle.
While I in no way condone the Sergeant's actions, the clown that recorded the incident and showed it around will ultimately be answerable for such stupidity.
For my liking, there have been too many posts on here from people who have little or no experience of what it's like to spend months (or longer)
on the ground dealing with a fanatical, unprincipled and barbaric enemy.
The high moral ground is no good to you if you and your mates are dead.
The high moral ground is for those sipping chardonnay in the dining-room of 'The Club' and those tut-tutting over their morning newspaper and croissants.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Stanwell. The Fireside Fusiliers and the Ante-room Artillery rarely if ever have actual combat experience although they are ready, willing and able to pontificate on every aspect of it. I shall never forget the first time I came under fire. That's when a chap grows up in a hurry!
Originally Posted by Tourist
I don't happen to think that treating men and their behaviour in a wartime like they are in a UK street when it comes to crimes is justice though.
It must be tricky to keep your moral compass when war ruins any sense of right and wrong based on rules invented by men in ivory towers.
It must be tricky to keep your moral compass when war ruins any sense of right and wrong based on rules invented by men in ivory towers.
To offer a personal example of how the threat of litigation (or prosecution or whatever) affects the 21st Century warfighter, I spent many enjoyable nights (every week or two) in a secret bunker not far from London as the fall guy responsible for shooting down rogue airliners in the case that they lost comms and deviated from their flight plan - in the wake of 911.
My brief was "If you order them to be shot down and they're found to have not been a threat, you'll go to prison. If you don't order them to be shot down and they end up being a threat, you'll go to prison."
Anyway, if I hadn't been on holiday and terminal leave this week I would have been at the protest with bells on. Threats of disciplinary action be damned. I contributed £10 to Sergeant Blackman's fighting fund - best use of MoD money since we ordered billion pound apiece Mk3 Chinooks from the BAE a la carte menu....
I leave 16 years of regular RAF service (and 2 as a TA infantry bod) shaking my head in despair at the total mismanagement of our kit, ROE and strategic planning. The MoD and Army/RM CoC should be sacked then dropped onto Mount Sinjar without parachutes for the almost total abandonment of troops in Afghan patrol bases.
They say you never forget your first experience under fire: if I could have magically found the JAM tossers who were lobbing rockets at me and my team in Basra (2008-9), I might well have done what Sergeant Blackman RM did. As I never found them, it's not me in the dock. War is a dirty bloody fight - the geneva conventions belong in another era and will not solve the Daesh/AQ/Boko Haram crisis.
The British military legal system is insidiously open to pressure from above. When running an Orderly Room I was regularly leaned on to make an example of airmen charged by the scuffers. Pfffft.
Good luck Al.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil's advocate
If someone were to carry out a murder (it can't be an execution if its unlawful) in contravention to the laws of their country, their Services's Law, International Law. In addition if they made an attempt to ensure it was not seen by ISTAR, refused to treat someone who was injured (against several laws they had signed up to) and then shot them whilst quoting Shakespeare, looking them in the eye and admitting to breaking The Geneva Convention and telling everyone it never happened. Would and should they deserve and expect to go to jail?
Take emotion out of your decision and imagine that Mr Blackman was a Iranian Naval SNCO who happened to capture an injured Royal Navy boarding party Royal Marine who had strayed into Iranian waters, would you be saying "fair one, they were under a bit of stress?"
Take emotion out of your decision and imagine that Mr Blackman was a Iranian Naval SNCO who happened to capture an injured Royal Navy boarding party Royal Marine who had strayed into Iranian waters, would you be saying "fair one, they were under a bit of stress?"
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
HG, you make a good case, sad but never the less true.
I know we are talking 50 years on, but contrast the sentence awarded to Lt Calley after My Lai, and this one.
Ten years ago, two sentences of 10 and 3 years were awarded for prisonner abuse, so they were not a mile away from murder
I know we are talking 50 years on, but contrast the sentence awarded to Lt Calley after My Lai, and this one.
Ten years ago, two sentences of 10 and 3 years were awarded for prisonner abuse, so they were not a mile away from murder
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius, for a pre-meditated murder and an attempt to hide it he got off very lightly and if I was him I would be keeping quiet and just see my sentence out without rocking the boat. After all, beyond any doubt he is guilty of murder.
Attempting to compare Sgt Blackman's case with what a hypothetical Iranian may or may not do is naive. The two situations are apples and oranges. If the Iranians had been attacked repeatedly by a RM boarding party, who were not wearing any uniforms, hid amongst the population and committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war, the point may stand. But it doesn't.
Anyone who has actually been at the sharp end may know about TRiM studies and how shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event. This could have happened in this case, explaining the alleged pre-meditated nature of the killing. At worst it was manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, resulting in a suspended sentence, dismissal from the Service and psychiatric monitoring.
There is nothing quite as depressing as the unexpected knife in the back from those who purport to represent the UK military community.
Good luck with the appeal Al. At least Freddie Forsyth RAF (ret) and Capt Wales HCR support you.
Anyone who has actually been at the sharp end may know about TRiM studies and how shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event. This could have happened in this case, explaining the alleged pre-meditated nature of the killing. At worst it was manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, resulting in a suspended sentence, dismissal from the Service and psychiatric monitoring.
There is nothing quite as depressing as the unexpected knife in the back from those who purport to represent the UK military community.
Good luck with the appeal Al. At least Freddie Forsyth RAF (ret) and Capt Wales HCR support you.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rights vs privileges
On another thread I was asked what rights US citizens enjoy that UK citizens do not. I replied that essentially every right in the US Constitution is not a right in the UK. My reply was scorned and then I was banned from the thread. Nevertheless, below are two examples that illustrate my point:
The quotes below came from this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3290857/Fury-MoD-cowards-Soldiers-anger-military-chiefs-ban-serving-personnel-mass-rally-support-jailed-marine.html
"Some weeks ago, there was a debate in Parliament about this case. One MP, Sir Roger Gale, used a devastating phrase. He said (and I quote from Hansard): ‘It was not an ordinary court; it was a rigged court.’
As a member of Parliament, Sir Roger is allowed to say such things under parliamentary privilege. I cannot."
From the above it is clear that UK citizens have no free speech rights. Instead, free speech is a privilege granted by the government to its citizens, with some citizens having greater speech privileges than others, The government not only has the power to grant this privilege unevenly, it has the power to withdraw and/or limit that privilege at any time.
"One last thing: tomorrow at 11.30am, there is going to be an unofficial rally at College Green, opposite Parliament, organised word-of-mouth by ex-servicemen supporters on the internet, to demonstrate solidarity with the wrongly imprisoned Marine.
No big-wigs are behind it; indeed, the big-wigs are trying to stop it. The Metropolitan Police have refused to ban it."
The police have the power to ban such a rally, but in this case have refused to do so. However, the rally is banned to all service members. So like free speech, the right to peaceable assembly is a privilege granted by the government to its citizens, with some citizens having greater privileges than others, and with the government having the power to withdraw/limit that privilege at any time.
Basically, all the rights contained in the US Constitution are privileges in the UK that are granted by the government to its citizens. And unlike the US rights which are absolute and may not be infringed, the privileges in the UK can be granted unevenly and can be withdrawn and/or curtailed at any time for essentially any reason.
I'm NOT saying that either system is inherently "better" than the other. But they are undeniably VERY different.
The quotes below came from this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3290857/Fury-MoD-cowards-Soldiers-anger-military-chiefs-ban-serving-personnel-mass-rally-support-jailed-marine.html
"Some weeks ago, there was a debate in Parliament about this case. One MP, Sir Roger Gale, used a devastating phrase. He said (and I quote from Hansard): ‘It was not an ordinary court; it was a rigged court.’
As a member of Parliament, Sir Roger is allowed to say such things under parliamentary privilege. I cannot."
From the above it is clear that UK citizens have no free speech rights. Instead, free speech is a privilege granted by the government to its citizens, with some citizens having greater speech privileges than others, The government not only has the power to grant this privilege unevenly, it has the power to withdraw and/or limit that privilege at any time.
"One last thing: tomorrow at 11.30am, there is going to be an unofficial rally at College Green, opposite Parliament, organised word-of-mouth by ex-servicemen supporters on the internet, to demonstrate solidarity with the wrongly imprisoned Marine.
No big-wigs are behind it; indeed, the big-wigs are trying to stop it. The Metropolitan Police have refused to ban it."
The police have the power to ban such a rally, but in this case have refused to do so. However, the rally is banned to all service members. So like free speech, the right to peaceable assembly is a privilege granted by the government to its citizens, with some citizens having greater privileges than others, and with the government having the power to withdraw/limit that privilege at any time.
Basically, all the rights contained in the US Constitution are privileges in the UK that are granted by the government to its citizens. And unlike the US rights which are absolute and may not be infringed, the privileges in the UK can be granted unevenly and can be withdrawn and/or curtailed at any time for essentially any reason.
I'm NOT saying that either system is inherently "better" than the other. But they are undeniably VERY different.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A non-emotional analysis.
Training Risky – I understand the emotive nature of this case and this is why it is so contentious. Please take emotion out of the equation and look at the facts of the case in relation to law; there is no defence that can justify the death of an enemy combatant being killed in cold blood by someone who knew better and should have been protecting the law of the land as part of the International Security and Assistance Force. The clue is in the name.
So to now address your points.
"Attempting to compare Sgt Blackman's case with what a hypothetical Iranian may or may not do is naive. The two situations are apples and oranges. If the Iranians had been attacked repeatedly by a RM boarding party, who were not wearing any uniforms, hid amongst the population and committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war, the point may stand. But it doesn't."
Okay, lets get back to apples then, I take from your statement above that you would be happy for the IRA to carry out the same act as Mr Blackman and be convicted of manslaughter. After all, for the disadvantaged Catholic youth from Belfast the circumstances were as you described above.
The British military "attacked repeatedly", this was after the British Government 'invaded' NI (that's how it is viewed by the IRA). The official 100% attributable death toll is 156 unarmed civilians killed by the British Army/agencies (1969 - 2007) in numerous incidents such as Bloody Sunday, Gibraltar, Loughall etc. By various units of the British government i.e. Military Reaction Force (MRF), Army, Marines, RAF, RUC/PSNI, SAS/SBS, FRU, Special Branch, 14 Int etc. Several high profile incidents made the front page of the tabloids, just to ensure the whole UK knew that the government was "attacking repeatedly" e.g. Lee Clegg, Patrick McVeigh, Pat Finnucane, Glenanne Gang etc. etc.)
The British military/agencies "were not wearing uniforms" - SAS, SBS, 14 Int, Special Branch, MI5, MRF, FRU to name but a few.
The British military/agencies "committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war", namely - Internment, disregard of RoE (MRF, SF), collusion with Loyalists (Glennane Gang, Miami Showban Killings, Monaghan bombings), arming loyalists, allowing serious crimes to be committed by informers (STAKEKNIFE, Brian Nelson and the murder of Francisco Notarantonio), destroy evidence that would convict British military/agency personnel (Stevens Inquiry), illegal searches, destruction of property, beatings, torture, illegal surveillance etc.
You may find this link useful – www.SinnFein.com/ClosetRepublican/SignUp.htm
"Anyone who has actually been at the sharp end may know about TRiM studies and how shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event. This could have happened in this case, explaining the alleged pre-meditated nature of the killing. At worst it was manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, resulting in a suspended sentence, dismissal from the Service and psychiatric monitoring."
As a (just) current TRiM Team Leader and who has deployed enough times on ops (almost double figures now and just ~40 days short of a bar for my ACSM), I am more than aware of how “shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event”. I have seen (and delivered) more death, trauma and suffering than I will ever tell my wife and kids or will admit to myself if I am being honest. I have also seen a few friends leave the Service with PTSD. Please don’t assume you know others’ story.
As for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility please see the references below. The following are the grounds according to the CPS for diminished responsibility -
1. If the psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will make a hospital order.
2. Where a hospital order is not recommended, or is not appropriate, and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for an unpredictable period of time, the right sentence will, in all probability, be one of life imprisonment.
3. In cases where the evidence indicates that the accused's responsibility for his acts was so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient course will be open to the judge. Provided that there is no danger of repetition of violence, it will usually be possible to make such an order as will give the accused his freedom possibly with some supervision.
4. There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order, that in which the accused's degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused's responsibility his view as to the period of time, if any, which the accused will continue to be danger to the public.
Lets address each in turn -
1. Not relevant in this case as he was not in possession of a psychiatric report recommending diminished responsibility.
2. Not relevant in this case as he was not in possession of a psychiatric report recommending diminished responsibility and he is unlikely to repeat his act as he will never end up on a battlefield again.
3. Potentially relevant although I would argue that it doesn’t apply. Mr Blackman made several coherent, albeit flawed, decisions in the lead up to the shooting of the enemy combatant. He firstly asked for his lads to stop treating the casualty (clear breach of LOAC) which he knew as he was a SNCO and it is taught prior to deploying. He then decided to move the casualty out of view of the ISTAR balloon, thus implying he had thought about shooting the casualty at this point or at least didn’t want his lack of casualty treatment to be spotted, again this was a coherent and calculated decision. He then had the presence of mind to remember some Shakespeare to quote to his victim, again a coherent decision that took presence of mind. He then walked up to his victim and shot him at point blank range and killed him and admitted he had broken the Geneva Convention. His final coherent act was to tell his lads that “this obviously didn’t happen, right?” He then radioed in to say his victim had died. There was nothing about his actions that he had diminished responsibility for, it was a rational decision that he had numerous points whereby he could have stopped his course of action. He chose not to. His defence was that he thought the casualty had died, despite the video of the event clearly showing him being alive and Mr Blackman quoting Shakespeare that clearly shows he thought he was alive.
4. Potentially relevant – I would argue this is the case that applies to Mr Blackman for the reasons within point 3 above.
Be careful what you are wishing as Mr Blackman has gotten off lightly due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding the deployment. If you end up going down that route there is a risk that scenario 1 applies and a long stay in a hospital will ensue, more than likely longer than his current sentence which will be shorter due to good behaviour, which does take into account the circumstances of his deployment. It is worth remembering that he is in a Cat C Prison which is the lowest category that actually locks people up and is defined as for prisoners "who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape".
“There is nothing quite as depressing as the unexpected knife in the back from those who purport to represent the UK military community.”
I will flip this straight back at you, by supporting Mr Blackman and fighting for his innocence you are endangering the lives of every other Serviceman who deploys. The rumour amongst enemy forces will be that we have a no survivor’s policy which is shared by the full military. This will make the enemy fight even harder if they believe they will die regardless of the LOAC. It is difficult to invade a country and preach about democracy and then shoot people in cold blood; that is NOT democracy in any form.
“Good luck with the appeal Al. At least Freddie Forsyth RAF (ret) and Capt Wales HCR support you.”
For the record, Capt Wales has not given his support, a “friend close to the Prince” said that he was frustrated and would like to give his support. Got to love the Daily Mail and the gutter press.
To that end I would like to announce that Prince Charles is “keen to host a week long LGBT event and carnival at Sandringham, but unfortunately ‘Royal Charles’ is not allowed to openly support this”
Reference
Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
p.s. For the record, as a human I do feel for Mr Blackman as he was doing a tough job in tough circumstances. I think all things being considered he has gotten off very lightly in comparison, look at Pontous Navigator's last post. That being said, the law was broken on so many levels and there was a huge cover up and several layers of deception and Mr Blackman deserves what he received.
So to now address your points.
"Attempting to compare Sgt Blackman's case with what a hypothetical Iranian may or may not do is naive. The two situations are apples and oranges. If the Iranians had been attacked repeatedly by a RM boarding party, who were not wearing any uniforms, hid amongst the population and committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war, the point may stand. But it doesn't."
Okay, lets get back to apples then, I take from your statement above that you would be happy for the IRA to carry out the same act as Mr Blackman and be convicted of manslaughter. After all, for the disadvantaged Catholic youth from Belfast the circumstances were as you described above.
The British military "attacked repeatedly", this was after the British Government 'invaded' NI (that's how it is viewed by the IRA). The official 100% attributable death toll is 156 unarmed civilians killed by the British Army/agencies (1969 - 2007) in numerous incidents such as Bloody Sunday, Gibraltar, Loughall etc. By various units of the British government i.e. Military Reaction Force (MRF), Army, Marines, RAF, RUC/PSNI, SAS/SBS, FRU, Special Branch, 14 Int etc. Several high profile incidents made the front page of the tabloids, just to ensure the whole UK knew that the government was "attacking repeatedly" e.g. Lee Clegg, Patrick McVeigh, Pat Finnucane, Glenanne Gang etc. etc.)
The British military/agencies "were not wearing uniforms" - SAS, SBS, 14 Int, Special Branch, MI5, MRF, FRU to name but a few.
The British military/agencies "committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war", namely - Internment, disregard of RoE (MRF, SF), collusion with Loyalists (Glennane Gang, Miami Showban Killings, Monaghan bombings), arming loyalists, allowing serious crimes to be committed by informers (STAKEKNIFE, Brian Nelson and the murder of Francisco Notarantonio), destroy evidence that would convict British military/agency personnel (Stevens Inquiry), illegal searches, destruction of property, beatings, torture, illegal surveillance etc.
You may find this link useful – www.SinnFein.com/ClosetRepublican/SignUp.htm
"Anyone who has actually been at the sharp end may know about TRiM studies and how shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event. This could have happened in this case, explaining the alleged pre-meditated nature of the killing. At worst it was manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, resulting in a suspended sentence, dismissal from the Service and psychiatric monitoring."
As a (just) current TRiM Team Leader and who has deployed enough times on ops (almost double figures now and just ~40 days short of a bar for my ACSM), I am more than aware of how “shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event”. I have seen (and delivered) more death, trauma and suffering than I will ever tell my wife and kids or will admit to myself if I am being honest. I have also seen a few friends leave the Service with PTSD. Please don’t assume you know others’ story.
As for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility please see the references below. The following are the grounds according to the CPS for diminished responsibility -
1. If the psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will make a hospital order.
2. Where a hospital order is not recommended, or is not appropriate, and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for an unpredictable period of time, the right sentence will, in all probability, be one of life imprisonment.
3. In cases where the evidence indicates that the accused's responsibility for his acts was so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient course will be open to the judge. Provided that there is no danger of repetition of violence, it will usually be possible to make such an order as will give the accused his freedom possibly with some supervision.
4. There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order, that in which the accused's degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused's responsibility his view as to the period of time, if any, which the accused will continue to be danger to the public.
Lets address each in turn -
1. Not relevant in this case as he was not in possession of a psychiatric report recommending diminished responsibility.
2. Not relevant in this case as he was not in possession of a psychiatric report recommending diminished responsibility and he is unlikely to repeat his act as he will never end up on a battlefield again.
3. Potentially relevant although I would argue that it doesn’t apply. Mr Blackman made several coherent, albeit flawed, decisions in the lead up to the shooting of the enemy combatant. He firstly asked for his lads to stop treating the casualty (clear breach of LOAC) which he knew as he was a SNCO and it is taught prior to deploying. He then decided to move the casualty out of view of the ISTAR balloon, thus implying he had thought about shooting the casualty at this point or at least didn’t want his lack of casualty treatment to be spotted, again this was a coherent and calculated decision. He then had the presence of mind to remember some Shakespeare to quote to his victim, again a coherent decision that took presence of mind. He then walked up to his victim and shot him at point blank range and killed him and admitted he had broken the Geneva Convention. His final coherent act was to tell his lads that “this obviously didn’t happen, right?” He then radioed in to say his victim had died. There was nothing about his actions that he had diminished responsibility for, it was a rational decision that he had numerous points whereby he could have stopped his course of action. He chose not to. His defence was that he thought the casualty had died, despite the video of the event clearly showing him being alive and Mr Blackman quoting Shakespeare that clearly shows he thought he was alive.
4. Potentially relevant – I would argue this is the case that applies to Mr Blackman for the reasons within point 3 above.
Be careful what you are wishing as Mr Blackman has gotten off lightly due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding the deployment. If you end up going down that route there is a risk that scenario 1 applies and a long stay in a hospital will ensue, more than likely longer than his current sentence which will be shorter due to good behaviour, which does take into account the circumstances of his deployment. It is worth remembering that he is in a Cat C Prison which is the lowest category that actually locks people up and is defined as for prisoners "who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape".
“There is nothing quite as depressing as the unexpected knife in the back from those who purport to represent the UK military community.”
I will flip this straight back at you, by supporting Mr Blackman and fighting for his innocence you are endangering the lives of every other Serviceman who deploys. The rumour amongst enemy forces will be that we have a no survivor’s policy which is shared by the full military. This will make the enemy fight even harder if they believe they will die regardless of the LOAC. It is difficult to invade a country and preach about democracy and then shoot people in cold blood; that is NOT democracy in any form.
“Good luck with the appeal Al. At least Freddie Forsyth RAF (ret) and Capt Wales HCR support you.”
For the record, Capt Wales has not given his support, a “friend close to the Prince” said that he was frustrated and would like to give his support. Got to love the Daily Mail and the gutter press.
To that end I would like to announce that Prince Charles is “keen to host a week long LGBT event and carnival at Sandringham, but unfortunately ‘Royal Charles’ is not allowed to openly support this”
Reference
Manslaughter Diminished Responsibility: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
p.s. For the record, as a human I do feel for Mr Blackman as he was doing a tough job in tough circumstances. I think all things being considered he has gotten off very lightly in comparison, look at Pontous Navigator's last post. That being said, the law was broken on so many levels and there was a huge cover up and several layers of deception and Mr Blackman deserves what he received.
Last edited by heights good; 4th Nov 2015 at 19:53. Reason: Fat fingers
Training Risky – I understand the emotive nature of this case and this is why it is so contentious. Please take emotion out of the equation and look at the facts of the case in relation to law; there is no defence that can justify the death of an enemy combatant being killed in cold blood by someone who knew better
Father of stabbed burglar says householders can defend home - Telegraph
and should have been protecting the law of the land as part of the International Security and Assistance Force. The clue is in the name.
Okay, lets get back to apples then, I take from your statement above that you would be happy for the IRA to carry out the same act as Mr Blackman and be convicted of manslaughter. After all, for the disadvantaged Catholic youth from Belfast the circumstances were as you described above.
The British military "attacked repeatedly", this was after the British Government 'invaded' NI (that's how it is viewed by the IRA). The official 100% attributable death toll is 156 unarmed civilians killed by the British Army/agencies (1969 - 2007) in numerous incidents such as Bloody Sunday, Gibraltar, Loughall etc. By various units of the British government i.e. Military Reaction Force (MRF), Army, Marines, RAF, RUC/PSNI, SAS/SBS, FRU, Special Branch, 14 Int etc. Several high profile incidents made the front page of the tabloids, just to ensure the whole UK knew that the government was "attacking repeatedly" e.g. Lee Clegg, Patrick McVeigh, Pat Finnucane, Glenanne Gang etc. etc.)
The British military/agencies "were not wearing uniforms" - SAS, SBS, 14 Int, Special Branch, MI5, MRF, FRU to name but a few.
The British military/agencies "committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war", namely - Internment, disregard of RoE (MRF, SF), collusion with Loyalists (Glennane Gang, Miami Showban Killings, Monaghan bombings), arming loyalists, allowing serious crimes to be committed by informers (STAKEKNIFE, Brian Nelson and the murder of Francisco Notarantonio), destroy evidence that would convict British military/agency personnel (Stevens Inquiry), illegal searches, destruction of property, beatings, torture, illegal surveillance etc.
The British military/agencies "were not wearing uniforms" - SAS, SBS, 14 Int, Special Branch, MI5, MRF, FRU to name but a few.
The British military/agencies "committed other breaches of the 'rules' of war", namely - Internment, disregard of RoE (MRF, SF), collusion with Loyalists (Glennane Gang, Miami Showban Killings, Monaghan bombings), arming loyalists, allowing serious crimes to be committed by informers (STAKEKNIFE, Brian Nelson and the murder of Francisco Notarantonio), destroy evidence that would convict British military/agency personnel (Stevens Inquiry), illegal searches, destruction of property, beatings, torture, illegal surveillance etc.
As a (just) current TRiM Team Leader and who has deployed enough times on ops (almost double figures now and just ~40 days short of a bar for my ACSM), I am more than aware of how “shock/stress can manifest itself months/years after the event”. I have seen (and delivered) more death, trauma and suffering than I will ever tell my wife and kids or will admit to myself if I am being honest. I have also seen a few friends leave the Service with PTSD. Please don’t assume you know others’ story.
As for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility please see the references below. The following are the grounds according to the CPS for diminished responsibility.
As for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility please see the references below. The following are the grounds according to the CPS for diminished responsibility.
As an air weapons Targeteer who has seen at first hand how named individuals are put on target lists and cleared for prosecution ‘in cold blood’ (in your emotive words), even when not actively engaged in hostilities, I am astounded how people can be so squeamish when it comes to troops doing the same in the flesh. But that is a different argument, and not one that will ever change the enshrinement of the GC and LOAC in our laws or ROE. Maybe that will change if the crisis in Syria/Libya gets even worse?
Be careful what you are wishing as Mr Blackman has gotten off lightly due to the mitigating circumstances surrounding the deployment. If you end up going down that route there is a risk that scenario 1 applies and a long stay in a hospital will ensue, more than likely longer than his current sentence which will be shorter due to good behaviour, which does take into account the circumstances of his deployment. It is worth remembering that he is in a Cat C Prison which is the lowest category that actually locks people up and is defined as for prisoners "who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape".
I will flip this straight back at you, by supporting Mr Blackman and fighting for his innocence you are endangering the lives of every other Serviceman who deploys. The rumour amongst enemy forces will be that we have a no survivor’s policy which is shared by the full military. This will make the enemy fight even harder if they believe they will die regardless of the LOAC. It is difficult to invade a country and preach about democracy and then shoot people in cold blood; that is NOT democracy in any form.
For the record, Capt Wales has not given his support, a “friend close to the Prince” said that he was frustrated and would like to give his support. Got to love the Daily Mail and the gutter press.
To that end I would like to announce that Prince Charles is “keen to host a week long LGBT event and carnival at Sandringham, but unfortunately ‘Royal Charles’ is not allowed to openly support this”
To that end I would like to announce that Prince Charles is “keen to host a week long LGBT event and carnival at Sandringham, but unfortunately ‘Royal Charles’ is not allowed to openly support this”
p.s. For the record, as a human I do feel for Mr Blackman as he was doing a tough job in tough circumstances. I think all things being considered he has gotten off very lightly in comparison, look at Pontous Navigator's last post. That being said, the law was broken on so many levels and there was a huge cover up and several layers of deception and Mr Blackman deserves what he received.
