Let me see if I've got this right: You've posted the court transcripts of an SAS member on open public forum? Replete with said members address. Sir, in my most humble honest opinion. You are not worth a shite.
Court was open to the public wasn't it? And in general, any court transcript is available to the public........and, besides, he ain't going to be SAS any more, at least I doubt it very much, seeing as how his picture has been plastered everywhere..... ...just thought I would mention it. AL
I’ve now had a chance to read through both the transcript of the Court Martial proceedings on 7 November 2012 and the Hansard report of today’s adjournment debate in the House of Commons [the links are in this thread, if anyone is interested]. The judge was Judge Alistair McGrigor whom I know very well, and he appears to have made a first-class job of handling the case. It is clear that the sentence is very lenient indeed, and is far below the normal level for such offences. The defendant was given every possible credit for the mitigation fully argued in his favour. Instead of five years prison (which would inevitably involve dismissal and reduction to the ranks), he was given only 18 months detention without dismissal and without loss of Sergeant’s stripes. He may even be able to soldier on afterwards, unless the Army decides to discharge him (discharge and dismissal are different). The response to the Commons debate of Oliver Heald MP, the Solicitor-General, also sets out the position with admirable clarity and reason. One odd feature of the case is the defendant’s apparent refusal to accept legal aid, which is almost always provided by the Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority (AFCLAA); most unusual for such a serious case, and hard to understand. Only the wealthy, or the very ill-advised, refuse legal aid.
Just read the lot, very interesting. However he may be in "the glass house" but is not dissmissed and not reduced in rank, and will soldier on, possibly not in the SAS, he was if my reading of this is correct he was lucky only to get the 24 months soldier on could have been much worse.
Teriffic, so now any terrorist organisation that can be arsed can just pop off to Hereford and fill their boots. VFC.
One odd feature of the case is the defendant’s apparent refusal to accept legal aid, which is almost always provided by the Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority (AFCLAA); most unusual for such a serious case, and hard to understand. Only the wealthy, or the very ill-advised, refuse legal aid. MR WINTER: He chose to go down this route. That is his choice but the consequences is thus, and as you know if he were to be discharged, and I am going to invite you not yourselves to make that order, but if he were to be discharged dishonourably, the costs as you have seen on page 5 of the bundle are very, very substantial and therefore utterly ruinous to him Am i reading this correctly, that if he had legal aid and lost he would have had to pay the extra costs?
Sounds like a very honourable and decent bloke to me. Made mistakes, maybe took a few risks, and in his line of business may have taken the occasional life, but life seems to have given to the Army and Queen over anything else including his wife and family in these circumstances, having read that info, I'm glad they were lenient.
Another update from wednesdays on line edition.Thanks for looking.Stu David Cameron supports jailed SAS soldier Sgt Danny Nightingale - Telegraph .
Excuse me? (A) The court transcript is publicly available on the internet anyway, and what I posted was just a link to it. (B) The judge went to lengths to ensure that the SAS was never mentioned at the trial, and thus is not mentioned in the transcript. (C) The fact that the SAS barracks are near Hereford has long been widely known and published. (D) The publication of Sgt Nightingale’s photo, family details and connection to the SAS in the media was his own decision, not the Army’s and not mine. (E) Thus it seems that the person who is “not worth a shite” according to you is Sgt Nightingale himself. I beg to disagree.
My opinion on this matter is perfectly straightforward.......... I have a 'ticket' and am therefore 'legal'. Even so, if I was found to have an unlicensed weapon (and a load of illegal ammunition; which it is, if a licence isn't held) I would be banged up for 7 years. 'I forgot' and 'I didn't know' or 'I was ill' are not mitigating excuses. Sgt Nightingale might be a brave soldier who has served his country, but nothing gives him any rights over me to hold illegal weapons and ammunition. In simple terms, he and his colleagues were daft; for which he is paying a price... ...A price which is considerably less than what I would pay; that sentence in all probability has taken into consideration his military service, so in my view, he has been dealt with leniently. AL.
Mr Winter got into a slight muddle here. There is no such thing as “discharged dishonourably” nowadays. Dismissal is asentence of a court; discharge is an administrative process like an employer sacking an employee. If Sgt Nightingale had applied for legal aid from AFCLAA he would have been assessed for a contribution (depending on his means) to be paid by installments up to a ceiling. Any costs in excess of the ceiling would be borne by AFCLAA whatever the outcome. Since he apparently did not obtain legal aid, he has to bear all the costs himself. The costs for a guilty plea and sentencing would be modest. If the case had gone to a full trial the costs would have been very much greater, and he would have to bear them all unless he was acquitted. Given the facts of the case he may well have been advised that acquittal was highly unlikely. The reality is that a person would only choose not to get legal aid if they expect to plead guilty, with low costs. Anyone considering a not guilty plea and trial always goes for legal aid – why wouldn’t they? For a legally aided person AFCLAA also bears the costs of preparing an appeal to the CMAC if required. In this case presumably Sgt Nightingale will have to bear the appeal costs himself as well.
Todays news update however wish that The Telegraph would moderate the tone of their headline. SAS sniper Sgt Nightingale 'could be home in time for Christmas' - Telegraph .
It is true that Sgt Nightingale could be home by Christmas. It is also true that he could be struck by lightning. I am inclined to attend the hearing next week and observe events. The Lord Chief Justice, Igor Judge, is fantastically good at this sort of thing, and it will be a pleasure to see him finding the right answer – whatever it is.
Reckon he changed his name to avoid confusion! Maybe he was Judge George and people kept misspelling or mis- pronouncing his name? and is it "eegore" or "eyegore"
Not exactly. He has been Mr Justice Judge, Lord Justice Judge, and now Lord Chief Justice Judge. It is only Circuit Judges and below who are formally titled "Judge Smith" etc.
