A good outcome, but i am not sure how a suspended sentence will go down in the Army in regards to soldiering on? i am sure we will find out in the comming days/months
So I was wrong, as it turned out. So what has happened here? The Court of Appeal almost always applies the statutes and precedents to the current case, as I thought it would here. Very occasionally, as in this case, the CA goes against a statute and sets a fresh precedent. This one drives a coach and horses through the Firearms Acts sentencing provisions, and future cases of possessing illegal firearms will inevitably cite this case in mitigation of sentence. This is what is known as “judge made law”. When the media find sentences are more lenient as a result, they usually disapprove and start to go on about “unelected judges”. Incidentally, if anyone is interested in the Court Martial (admittedly a dry topic) they can find JAG guidance about practice, procedure, sentencing, etc here: Judge advocate general I think these publications are very good –but then I would, seeing as I wrote them all.
It seems to me that a precedent has been established.......... "Sorry your honour, I forgot I was carrying an Uzi when it went off and hurt Mr Plod"......."Oh that's alright Mr Yardie, you really must remember in the future, but for now you had better do a bit of cleaning up graffiti......shall we say a couple of days?" AL
Great news that hes been released . Just wish they would send the bill to the half wit that sentenced him in the first place.
The six gentlemen who decided the original sentence were: Judge McGrigor (Assistant Judge Advocate General), Lieutenant Colonel P J McNulty (Army Air Corps), Major C N Bowman (The Royal Logistic Corps), Captain P R Snow (Corps of Royal Engineers), Warrant Officer Class One J S Marriott (The Rifles), and Warrant Officer Class Two J H Fretwell (Royal Regiment of Artillery). If you want to pick a quarrel with them, be my guest.
Yeah so they are the ones who have been proved wrong by the judge that has seen sense and released him . Bet they are really proud of themselves.
It brings to mind the blackadder sketch . Melchett. The healthy humour of the honest tommy. haha . Dont worry my boy, if you should falter, remember that Captain Darling and I are Right behind you . Blackadder. About thirty five miles behind you.
As Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said “This was an offence of great folly but not one undertaken for any personal gain.” Common sense prevailed in the end. Pete, I see no reason why 'This one drives a coach and horses through the Firearms Acts sentencing provisions, and future cases of possessing illegal firearms will inevitably cite this case in mitigation of sentence.' should be the case, assuming a common sense view of the circumstances of this particular case is taken into account.
Most statutes creating criminal offences do not set any minimum sentence, so the minimum is nil. The Firearms Act which imposed a minimum 5 yrs prison was strongly opposed by judiciary at the time, because it took away their discretion to be lenient. But Parliament is supreme, so the judges had to comply. Judges don’t go hunting for cases, they can only deal with ones which land in their IN tray. I suspect the LCJ has been waiting for years for a specimen case which he could use to set a precedent scuppering the minimum 5 yrs provision. Then the case of N happened along. The court below had not only avoided applying the 5 yrs prison required, it had set a very lenient sentence far below the guidelines and precedents. And yet N still appealed to the CA, a rare opportunity. The CA could have taken the conventional course, and criticised the court below for departing too far from the statute and the guidelines by being too lenient. But instead it has seized the opportunity and given its judgment departing even further from the statute and setting an even more extremely lenient sentence. This will not be lost on lawyers defending future firearms cases, who will inevitably rely on the precedent to demonstrate that the 5 yrs minimum is a dead duck and very lenient sentences have the stamp of approval. Why wouldn’t they? That’s how the law works. Whether this development is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion, but politicians and media will have plenty of time to moan about it later when it dawns on them what has just happened. Johnv,“common sense”? As far as I can gather,you like to attach the label “common sense” to your own views because you think it adds to their legitimacy and enables you to label other views as “lacking in common sense”. Doesn’t work though! Your opinions stand or fall on their merits, just like the rest of us. The case has been quite interesting, but may I say something about Danny Nightingale himself. I don’t know him, I’ve never met him, I know nothing about him, and I therefore have no opinion whether he personally should be in detention or not. It’s the law and the principles which are interesting, not the person.
Defence lawyers may well cite this example of 'judge made law' and presumably judges can decide whether to use the more lenient option they now have at their disposal and if the prosecution doesn't like it presumably they could appeal to the CA. I quite like this idea because it acts like a reality check on the original legislation, and if Parliament doesn't like it they can draft new over riding legislation. Any system that adds a level of scrutiny to the powers of others is OK by me. Naturally my 'common sense' reflects my own views but I am happy to 'have them stand or fall on their merits'.
We must not forget that the case of Sgt N doesn't only include the unlawful possession of an unlicensed weapon (in fact it is not just an unlicensed weapon, it is a prohobited weapon). On top of that there is the matter of the ownership of the ammunition, which is also illegal and prohibited. Furthermore there is the issue of the import of a prohibited weapon and prohibited ammunition. I make that at least four sections of the law that has been broken within the Firearms Act 1968; 1982 Act; 1988 Amendment; 1992 regulations; 1992 Amendment; 1994 Amendment; 1997 Amendment; Firearms Rules 1988 and 1991 EC Directive (91/477/EEC).......therefore I suspect there are more than four offences that have been committed. Sgt N should consider himself bl**dy lucky. AL
We should consider ourselves bloody lucky that the likes of sgt N are here and about in the first place never mind kicking the likes of sgt N when they have made a mistake. We should be doing all we can to protect him in his hour of need as he would to us in ours.
Yes, because there's never been a case of a soldier or ex-soldier going off the rails and killing innocents has there. Ex-soldier Michael Pedersen stabbed himself to death after killing children - Telegraph Soldier Ian Lowe seemed suicidal on night girlfriend Leanne McNuff was killed, jury told | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk SAS Man Who Killed Ex With Kalashnikov Could Be Out In Eight Years - Daily Record
Looks like something of a series of "games", I.e. sgt N used as an example to show the RMPs/police are getting tough on this stuff, and hence filling the amnesty boxes, as previously mentioned. The fact he got a surprise result seems to go with this sort of version, and, for a change, shows that our legal system of testing the facts, and challenging in a legal way, sometimes works to the benefit of not just the seemingly low-life sorts that drain the system and get away with proverbial murder, but for a seemingly honest, if a bit reckless (and prone to occasional acts of stupidity) squaddie. And what by consensus is common sense (mine and probably the moral majority version of common sense, that is) seems to have prevailed with the guy home, and most squaddies a bit more fearful of illicit trophy gathering after a shot across their bows. my two penn'orth, for what it's worth.
Never mind the legal system or who has killed who with whatever . There will always be nutters about that would kill with anything to hand . BUT . How many would be terrorists would there be without these people. Its alright saying he shouldnt have been let off for this horrendous crime of forgetting to hand it in but how many would be crying for his return if 7/11 happened every week . I think you should all be thank full for these criminals coz they keep you safe.
