Went for a little tab with N and others over the last weekend (just incase you didnt know,his name is Danny BTW) and he is not at all fazed at this time. S
Turns out the preliminary matters were all dealt with in one day on Monday, so the substantive trial was brought forward to begin today (Tuesday). Prosecution case in progress, likely to take a few days, then the defence's turn.
whos paying for the legal teams Pete............and how much will it cost if and when they string it out.....
Most Service Prosecuting Authority prosecutors are serving Army/RN/RAF officers, so their pay comes from the MOD budget the same as all service personnel in every specialism. As regards the defence legal team, as previously remarked N has chosen not to take legal aid from the Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority (AFCLAA) as he could have done, so it is not clear where the money will come from - if not from his own pocket. If he were to be acquitted, he would of course get the costs paid for him anyway out of public funds (at legal aid rates).
Article yesterday on BBC website and other press talked about them bringing in ex SAS as prosecution witnesses (incl 2 serving prison time) for the prosecution and breaking unspoken rules of testifying in the court, the senior brass are that peed by all this. Also a post Nightingale case amnesty brought in a skip of arms including rocket launchers
Not sure what point you are making, bradders. Witnesses of fact are simply people who may know about matters relevant to a court case. They are called to court (if necessary by witness summons) and they are obliged to answer questions about what they have seen and heard - telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It makes no difference whether they are called by the prosecution or the defence. Surely you cannot be suggesting there can possibly be an "unspoken rule" against telling the truth to a court of law? Who might such a "rule" apply to?
It's part of the mystique of the Special forces, adding to the sense of the rules not applying to them, as exemplified by the attitude of Stu-Pendous who seems so in awe of the bullet thief that he will ignore all transgressions.
Don't be worried about Danny being referred to as 'N', it's a legal reference. For example the Crown is abbreviated to 'R'. This is either for Rex or Regina depending on who is the reigning Monarch. As Pete has a legal background I wouldn't expect him to refer to 'N' as anything else!
Apologies - the above point is wrong. I had forgotten that the government changed the rule on this in October 2012, so that now a defendant who refused to apply for legal aid and is later acquitted does not get the defence costs paid for him. The defendant is left to pay the costs himself.
I attended the trial at Bulford today. Listened to some evidence. Discussed the case with court officials. Spoke to Judge Blackett (about unrelated matters). Tomorrow (Thursday) the soldier with whom Sgt Nightingale shared the flat in Hereford is due to give evidence, being brought from Colchester (where he is serving his own sentence) for the purpose. This soldier is being referred to, rather confusingly, as "Soldier N" - so no longer can Danny Nightingale be referred to as N without ambiguity. Best guess is that the trial may end about next Wednesday. I may or may not attend for the verdict.
Huh? The defendant must apply for legal aid, which he won't be paid if he earns more than the minimum wage in order to get his court costs paid if he wins? Really? Just exactly how much does this government want interfere with every aspect of our lives?
No, that's not right either. If a defendant applies to AFCLAA for legal aid for a Court Martial case, it will be put in place. Defendant will be assessed to a contribution depending on disposable income and capital assets, to be paid in monthly instalments. He might contribute say £10,000 or £20,000. Once he has paid the contribution, AFCLAA will bear all costs beyond that, regardless how much, and for a case with QCs, several days or weeks of hearings, loads of witness statements, etc the costs might easily be £100,000 or £200,000. And if acquitted he gets the contribution back with interest. By declining legal aid, the same defendant is left having to find the whole amount himself regardless of outcome. No brainer.
Tis indeed a no-brainer and what you describe is very similar to what I experienced with my one-and-only brush with the (civilian) Legal Aid system. I was presented with the option to pay what amounted to 20,000 times my effective disposable income every month, for the privilege of receiving financial aid. I opted out. That decision itself was a no-brainer, under the circumstances .... my total expenditure was a fraction of what my contribution to legal aid would have cost me, each and every month.
