Former soldier convicted of manslaughter in NI troubles 1988
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
I actually tend to agree with the result of this one, the only query I had was the line
No jury?
And the fact that it appears to be one sided due to the issue of Immunity letters etc
But trial judge Mr Justice O'Hara said he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.
And the fact that it appears to be one sided due to the issue of Immunity letters etc
I don't think everyone in Britain has a full idea of how discrimated against and subjugated the Catholic population of NI was in the run up to the Troubles.
Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 28th Nov 2022 at 12:44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
Allowing them the vote would have been a start.
https://fb.watch/h4nrO_kg1i/
Lest we Forget.
Personally, having lived through daily news reports of atrocities (on all sides) in NI when I was growing up, I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.
Lest we Forget.
Personally, having lived through daily news reports of atrocities (on all sides) in NI when I was growing up, I prefer the NI of today. It isn't perfect but it's light years away from the mess that was the 1970/80s.
What other methods did you have in mind Nutloose? Bare in mind Catholics were not allowed vote, and their initially peaceful protests were attacked by the RUC. That's one of the reasons why the Army were originally sent in, to protect the Catholic population from the RUC and vigilante attacks.
I don't don't everyone in Britain has a full idea of how discrimated against and subjugated the Cathlic population of NI was in the run up to the Troubles.
I don't don't everyone in Britain has a full idea of how discrimated against and subjugated the Cathlic population of NI was in the run up to the Troubles.
I still find it astonishing that so many people have no understanding at all of the position of the, then minority, catholic population in NI, or that in 1969 the army went in to protect them from protestant attacks. As you so rightly say, catholics were a persecuted minority there at that time, that had to endure constant threats and goading from a small, but very powerful, group of protestant extremists.
I had the misfortune to work at an establishment where the civilian admin bloke was one of that protestant minority. I can clearly remember being at a barbecue with that man espousing his view that all catholic babies should be spit roasted, to rid the land of their scourge. Not said by him in in fun, either. The fact that no one batted an eyelid when he said this says it all, really.
The finding of gross negligence / manslaughter seems too extreme, to me at least, especially given the time elapsed - some 34 years after this tragic event. It is all too easy to produce an unsafe conviction, even without a defined statute of limitations in UK law.
It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.
The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.
The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.
So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.
Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.
It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.
The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.
The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.
So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.
Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.
I seem to remember a round imbeded in the Aldergrove armoury wall where you handed in your weapons from an SLP?
The finding of gross negligence / manslaughter seems too extreme, to me at least, especially given the time elapsed - some 34 years after this tragic event. It is all too easy to produce an unsafe conviction, even without a defined statute of limitations in UK law.
It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.
The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.
The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.
So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.
Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.
It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.
The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.
The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.
So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.
Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.
I do have some sympathy for the 'passage of time' argument, but would we apply that to other historical offences committed elsewhere in the world - the Holocaust, for example. "He was only a camp guard, he took orders from Himmler, who is now dead and cannot speak in his defence" (before anyone says it, no I am not comparing the British Army in NI to the SS, I am just taking the 'passage of time' argument to its logical conclusion), or Mai Lai, or Srebrenica, or what is happening in Ukraine today?? Also, the immediate family of Aidan McAnespie are still alive, and require justice just the same as if it was yours or my father/son/brother/uncle/friend who was shot dead in the street.
Last edited by melmothtw; 28th Nov 2022 at 14:13.
All good points well made, but a British court heard all the evidence and determined the verdict. For all you say about the GPMG's design flaws, this soldier (by his own admission) lined a civilian up in his sights and pulled the trigger - that's not a negligent discharge. The judge did not believe the soldier's account that it was an accident, and without hearing all the evidence I'm not going to second guess them.
I do have some sympathy for the 'passage of time' argument, but would we apply that to other historical offences committed elsewhere in the world - the Holocaust, for example. "He was only a camp guard, he took orders from Himmler, who is now dead and cannot speak in his defence" (before anyone says it, no I am not comparing the British Army in NI to the SS, I am just taking the 'passage of time' argument to its logical conclusion), or Mai Lai, or Srebrenica, or what is happening in Ukraine today?? Also, the immediate family of Aidan McAnespie are still alive, and require justice just the same as if it was yours or my father/son/brother/uncle/friend who was shot dead in the street.
I do have some sympathy for the 'passage of time' argument, but would we apply that to other historical offences committed elsewhere in the world - the Holocaust, for example. "He was only a camp guard, he took orders from Himmler, who is now dead and cannot speak in his defence" (before anyone says it, no I am not comparing the British Army in NI to the SS, I am just taking the 'passage of time' argument to its logical conclusion), or Mai Lai, or Srebrenica, or what is happening in Ukraine today?? Also, the immediate family of Aidan McAnespie are still alive, and require justice just the same as if it was yours or my father/son/brother/uncle/friend who was shot dead in the street.
The verdict will have been predicated on the facts of the incident, and whether or not this young soldier should or should not have behaved as he did. The sentence will, presumably (and I do not know the exact details of how it is determined) take into account the passage of time, any failings in the chain of command, training, the weapon involved, etc. There have been several cases where people have been found guilty of, for example, helping someone terminally ill die, which I believe may be classed as manslaughter, but where the sentence had been non-custodial.
I don't believe there is any leeway in the UK justice system when it comes to pronouncing a verdict, but there does seem to be a lot of leeway when it comes to sentencing, it seems.
"The finding of gross negligence / manslaughter seems too extreme, to me at least, especially given the time elapsed -"
If that killing had happened in England Scotland or Wales do you think it would have taken 34 years to come to court?
And it wasn't " crazy angle ricochet" The judge found that Holden had pointed a machine gun at Mr McAnespie and pulled the trigger.
If that killing had happened in England Scotland or Wales do you think it would have taken 34 years to come to court?
And it wasn't " crazy angle ricochet" The judge found that Holden had pointed a machine gun at Mr McAnespie and pulled the trigger.
The finding of gross negligence / manslaughter seems too extreme, to me at least, especially given the time elapsed - some 34 years after this tragic event. It is all too easy to produce an unsafe conviction, even without a defined statute of limitations in UK law.
It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.
The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.
The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.
So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.
Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.
It is beyond any doubt that this teenage soldier influenced in any way the preceding events leading to this fatal outcome. Political decisions put soldiers on the streets of its citizens and to arm them with battlefield weapons such as the belt-fed heavy GPMG used here. All the operational commanders and tactical leaders of this junior soldier have long since died, taking those who sited the sangar, defined the arcs of fire and detailed a loaded GPMG for that role on that street. With all those actual decision makers now dead they are removed from the witnesses-for-the-defence list, cannot be cross-examined or account for their own actions. Above all, all those decision makers knew and accepted the additional risk to human life when you put battlefield weapons in that situation. When they 'accept' that risk they 'own' part of it. It should not all tumble down to the last soldier and certainly not to the extent that a careless disregard for life is attributed to him alone.
The elapsed time also robs the accused of any detailed memory of his actions or those expected of him. I may have spent most of my own career flying but I did do 3 brief stints in supporting specialist roles which required me to deploy fully trained and current on the GPMG. My last time behind this weapon is 'only' decade ago and even in that shorter timespan I cannot recall all the drills and quirks of the GPMG. I do remember that the drills changed between my first and second qualification (feed tray) and varied again for helo use. For those in the US reading GPMG = M249 you would be very close but all the extra safety revisions and the drastic removal of the number of risks of an ND have never been retrofitted to the British GPMG. I've had a US colleague grab my arm in the dead of night when he saw me operate the cocking handle before removing the belt and my 'failure' to conduct drills with the safety applied - but that was (is?) required of our rustic / original 'version' of the modern M249.
The British version of the FN MAG / GPMG is an awesome battlefield weapon but it is not a weapon you would want on your own civilian streets. It has zero design sh*** given for accidental firing (negligent discharge), just to spit hate at HMG's enemies. With a safety that cannot be applied unless cocked, fixed firing pin on an open bolt action, no traverse safety blocks/sears, normal drills conducted with the safety off, fully cocked for an 'unload' to remove the feed-horn pressure on the first round, feed tray drills slowly swapping from sweep alone to actually checking the breach for a live round before changing back again, depending on where the decision wheel was, using the trigger on normal drills, slip-fire risk with the top cover, an 'unload' drill that accepted that a live round could remain in the breach and be fired when you pull the trigger during the 'unload' drill... etc etc. No doubt those with better memory can correct, add or even take away from the list but the point is that these risks would be unacceptable for weapon acceptance now and even back then the risks were held by the MoD, not the soldier alone.
So we grab a junior soldier from basic, train him hard for ceremonial duties with his trusty SLR and shiny boots n' bayonet before a quick refresh and deployment in NI, with an unforgiving and loaded GPMG in a UK domestic street. Things can go wrong and the soldier has the final part to play - everything else that suggests an 'indifference to life' should sit at a level way-higher than the individual soldier.
Of course, none of this detracts from the unacceptable death in this incident; the victim was going about his day-to-day life before being hit once by a crazy-angle ricochet from an accidental 3 round burst from a battlefield weapon that was not aimed or pointed anywhere near him. The Crown put that soldier in that spot, with that weapon and in doing so it accepted its part in the increased risk to life. The Crown should not absolve itself 34 years later and then place all the blame on a single teenage soldier operating in a very different time to that of the modern day.
When I was at ATC camp in Malta (about '72) we were shooting on a range out to sea when a local boat came into view. The STOP was ordered and all cadets instructed to apply safety catches (Enfield .303). One of the cadets stood up holding his rifle then there was a loud bang and a rather scared looking cadet.
He was asked what happened; he replied he'd pointed the gun at the boat and pulled the trigger. The Oi/c examined the rifle and found that although it looked 'safe', the safety catch wasn't actually pushed all the way so it could be fired.
The round actually hit the wheelhouse of the boat and ricocheted inside it virtually demolishing it but thankfully no-one was hurt.
The station commander was 'in conference' with Dom Mintoff (the then Maltese PM who eventually kicked the military out of Malta) for several hours while the the problem was sorted out.
He was asked what happened; he replied he'd pointed the gun at the boat and pulled the trigger. The Oi/c examined the rifle and found that although it looked 'safe', the safety catch wasn't actually pushed all the way so it could be fired.
The round actually hit the wheelhouse of the boat and ricocheted inside it virtually demolishing it but thankfully no-one was hurt.
The station commander was 'in conference' with Dom Mintoff (the then Maltese PM who eventually kicked the military out of Malta) for several hours while the the problem was sorted out.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
In all cases I live in hope when a Lawyer or those being cross examined will turn around to the examining Lawyer and ask can you tell me what you were doing on Tuesday the 22nd of march 1992? or similar, because none of them probably can.
I don't know the significance of the 22 March 1992 date for you, Nutloose, but if that was a date you shot someone then I imagine you'd be able to remember the details just as well many years later.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
Just a random date, but I did say in all cases and the passage of time has a funny effect on the brain, if it didn't, it wouldn't be necessary for police officers to record details in their note books at the time for later use in court would it, because they would be able to recollect exactly what happened from memory.
Someone please explain why the passage of time (34 years) have anything to do with what level of "gross negligence " that occurred at the time of the event?
I can see the harm to recollection of events and other mitigating factors that would weigh in the Sentencing following conviction.
Whether the Accused could offer a proper defense to counter the allegations is a separate matter that should be considered by those passing judgment upon him in Court as part of the determination of Sentence.
"Just This Once" offers a very insightful commentary and sees it straight in my opinion.
The one thing that destroyed the Defense was knowingly pointing a firearm at a person with no intent or legal blessing to discharge that weapon.....then pulling the trigger. Triggers do not move themselves without some human intervention even if unintended.
I too have pointed firearms at people....not many....and in one case was fully intending to discharge the weapon at that person from about six feet away....and had actually started pulling the trigger on a Revolver....but did not complete the action because the fellow holding the knife elected to drop it in response to my demands he do so.
So I do understand reality.....and the need for proper training and self discipline to perform to the standards one is trained to conform to in one's performance of official duties especially those which put others at grave risk of serious injury or death.
My real question is why the 34 year wait? Who is responsible for that and why? Is that not the bigger crime than one Squaddie causing an accidental discharge of a weapon that resulted in an unnecessary death?
It is plain to see the matter was not properly handled at the time and to now bring this lone Soldier to Court for something that happened so long ago and not at the same time address the larger crimes that surrounded that event seems grossly unfair to me.
I can see the harm to recollection of events and other mitigating factors that would weigh in the Sentencing following conviction.
Whether the Accused could offer a proper defense to counter the allegations is a separate matter that should be considered by those passing judgment upon him in Court as part of the determination of Sentence.
"Just This Once" offers a very insightful commentary and sees it straight in my opinion.
The one thing that destroyed the Defense was knowingly pointing a firearm at a person with no intent or legal blessing to discharge that weapon.....then pulling the trigger. Triggers do not move themselves without some human intervention even if unintended.
I too have pointed firearms at people....not many....and in one case was fully intending to discharge the weapon at that person from about six feet away....and had actually started pulling the trigger on a Revolver....but did not complete the action because the fellow holding the knife elected to drop it in response to my demands he do so.
So I do understand reality.....and the need for proper training and self discipline to perform to the standards one is trained to conform to in one's performance of official duties especially those which put others at grave risk of serious injury or death.
My real question is why the 34 year wait? Who is responsible for that and why? Is that not the bigger crime than one Squaddie causing an accidental discharge of a weapon that resulted in an unnecessary death?
It is plain to see the matter was not properly handled at the time and to now bring this lone Soldier to Court for something that happened so long ago and not at the same time address the larger crimes that surrounded that event seems grossly unfair to me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
SASless, unfortunately it's the other cases, this one appears to have been a correct finding, but other cases had Court Marshals at the time, and were exonorated, as an example
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-conduct.html
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-8352/
and then there was this, as you can see its a minefield of controversity.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/no...given-immunity
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-conduct.html
If prosecuted, the soldiers, now in their 60s and 70s, will follow six Northern Ireland veterans including Dennis Hutchings, 79, who have already been charged following ‘legacy’ investigations into shootings dating back decades.A number of the soldiers have repeatedly been investigated and cleared of wrongdoing only to be reinvestigated by new units set up in Northern Ireland to deal with historical cases.
The Mail has highlighted the case of great-grandfather Mr Hutchings, who is due to stand trial on an attempted murder charge later this year in relation to a 1974 shooting.
He was previously investigated and cleared twice before his arrest in 2015.
He was previously investigated and cleared twice before his arrest in 2015.
There has been significant criticism, on all sides, of the process by which legacy investigations have been, and continue to be, undertaken. Concerns have been expressed over the credibility and reliability of evidence and witness statements that may be over 40 years old and of the re-opening of investigations that had already concluded. Most notable has been the widespread perception that investigations have disproportionately focused on the actions of the armed forces and former police officers: these account for 30% of the LIB’s workload but only form 10% of the overall deaths during the Troubles.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/no...given-immunity
BRITISH soldiers who shot dead unarmed civilians during a civil rights march in 1972 should not face prosecution, the former Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain has said.
Police in the province have recently re-opened an investigation into the events of Bloody Sunday, in which 13 protesters were killed by members of the Parachute Regiment. A 14th man died later from his injuries.
Writing in the [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/10670206/Hain-calls-for-Bloody-Sunday-troops-amnesty.html]Sunday Telegraph, Hain said: “Difficult as I know it is for victims on all sides, I see no point in endlessly searching for evidence for crimes committed so many years ago in the Troubles and which is increasingly difficult if not impossible to get given the passage of time.
“If we are going to draw a line on historic and in all probability fruitless investigations, that must include the pursuit of soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday.”
Hain also defended an amnesty granted to IRA suspects while he was in office, which sparked anger last week.
On Monday the trial was halted of John Downey, who was charged last year with killing four British soldiers in a bomb attack in Hyde Park in 1982. A judge ruled that a letter sent in 2007 assuring Downey, now 62, that he would not face trial must be honoured, even though it had been sent by mistake.
The case led Northern Irish First Minister Peter Robinson to issue a threat of resignation, which he withdrew when David Cameron promised a judicial inquiry into the “get out of jail free” letters.
Police in the province have recently re-opened an investigation into the events of Bloody Sunday, in which 13 protesters were killed by members of the Parachute Regiment. A 14th man died later from his injuries.
Writing in the [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/10670206/Hain-calls-for-Bloody-Sunday-troops-amnesty.html]Sunday Telegraph, Hain said: “Difficult as I know it is for victims on all sides, I see no point in endlessly searching for evidence for crimes committed so many years ago in the Troubles and which is increasingly difficult if not impossible to get given the passage of time.
“If we are going to draw a line on historic and in all probability fruitless investigations, that must include the pursuit of soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday.”
Hain also defended an amnesty granted to IRA suspects while he was in office, which sparked anger last week.
On Monday the trial was halted of John Downey, who was charged last year with killing four British soldiers in a bomb attack in Hyde Park in 1982. A judge ruled that a letter sent in 2007 assuring Downey, now 62, that he would not face trial must be honoured, even though it had been sent by mistake.
The case led Northern Irish First Minister Peter Robinson to issue a threat of resignation, which he withdrew when David Cameron promised a judicial inquiry into the “get out of jail free” letters.
I am a member of the NI vets association and the comments on a similar thread over on their site, are understandably on the side of the soldier. I am in no way saying that this chap is not guilty, indeed he admits to pulling the trigger. But we sit here over 30 years after the event, passing judgement on the chap from our warm cockpits. I served there for 9 years of my career, was shot at, mortared and stoned, I picked up and dropped off hundreds of young soldiers in the bad lands of South Armargh, looked into their 1000 yard stares and just like SASless's Vietnam the average age was 19, mere children. They were on edge everyday of their tours, not knowing where the shot was going to come from. I don't know the whole circumstances of the incident but he was on Sangar duty and would have been expected to cover off people coming and going. It's claimed that they were innocent civilians and earlier in this thread it was said that only 1% of the population were terrorists, but in South Armagh, whether in PIRA or not virtually all the local population hated us. He should not have pulled the trigger, caused this poor chap to die and the family years of grief and heartache., but rather than castigating the soldier all these years later put yourself in his shoes, your 19, on your first tour in the province, you have been told that they are all terrorists or sympathisers and that you have protect your mates. Are you so sure you wouldn't have had your finger covering the trigger just that little bit too close. Its time to put this all to bed, yes he's guilty, yes he has to face the consequences but who are we to stand judgement when we were not there and were never in that situation. So go ahead tear what I have said to shreds, unless you were serving during the longest campaign the Army has ever faced, 38 years, where the security forces suffered nearly 3000 casualties, you will never know.
Someone please explain why the passage of time (34 years) have anything to do with what level of "gross negligence " that occurred at the time of the event? [...]
It is plain to see the matter was not properly handled at the time and to now bring this lone Soldier to Court for something that happened so long ago and not at the same time address the larger crimes that surrounded that event seems grossly unfair to me.
It is plain to see the matter was not properly handled at the time and to now bring this lone Soldier to Court for something that happened so long ago and not at the same time address the larger crimes that surrounded that event seems grossly unfair to me.
Fast forward a few decades and those cases were subject to review and prosecution outside the CM process, this time in a civilian court. The more senior personnel in the chain of command and other witnesses have long since departed and not all records and evidence were retained. The prosecutions went ahead with what was left, which could make things look very bad or unjustifiably good. Hence someone's unchallenged notes from the day have survived that suggest (in this particular case) the individual did admit to taking aim. Other equally uncorroborated statements suggest the opposite and the forensics, such as they were, suggest that the 3-round burst all landed a considerable distance from the victim, indicating that he was not aimed at at all. The 3 ricochets all went off in different directions but 1 of them hit this innocent chap, some 300m or so from the firing point.
I've only been shot once (ie once too many) and it too was a ricochet. I've no idea who fired the round that hit me, other than it wasn't the enemy - it could even have been one of mine. Still hurt though.
It's been over a decade since I had to work or weapon, approve a dumb bomb attack or put my targeteer's signature against something surrounded by collateral damage concerns, to the very best of my ability. I guess I have to wait another 25 years or so to see if retrospective prosecutions are in vogue or not, or if what was considered acceptable at the time becomes abhorrent in the future.
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 28th Nov 2022 at 17:51. Reason: Fix font colour
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
I am a member of the NI vets association and the comments on a similar thread over on their site, are understandably on the side of the soldier. I am in no way saying that this chap is not guilty, indeed he admits to pulling the trigger. But we sit here over 30 years after the event, passing judgement on the chap from our warm cockpits. I served there for 9 years of my career, was shot at, mortared and stoned, I picked up and dropped off hundreds of young soldiers in the bad lands of South Armargh, looked into their 1000 yard stares and just like SASless's Vietnam the average age was 19, mere children. They were on edge everyday of their tours, not knowing where the shot was going to come from. I don't know the whole circumstances of the incident but he was on Sangar duty and would have been expected to cover off people coming and going. It's claimed that they were innocent civilians and earlier in this thread it was said that only 1% of the population were terrorists, but in South Armagh, whether in PIRA or not virtually all the local population hated us. He should not have pulled the trigger, caused this poor chap to die and the family years of grief and heartache., but rather than castigating the soldier all these years later put yourself in his shoes, your 19, on your first tour in the province, you have been told that they are all terrorists or sympathisers and that you have protect your mates. Are you so sure you wouldn't have had your finger covering the trigger just that little bit too close. Its time to put this all to bed, yes he's guilty, yes he has to face the consequences but who are we to stand judgement when we were not there and were never in that situation. So go ahead tear what I have said to shreds, unless you were serving during the longest campaign the Army has ever faced, 38 years, where the security forces suffered nearly 3000 casualties, you will never know.
And as long as this goes on there will be "sourness" on both sides, it really does need to be put to bed once and for all for both sides of the troubles, so the Country and everyone can move on to a brighter future, dragging it up over and over again does no one in the whole period in our history any good.