Danny Nightingale Court Martial Retrial.

[Gromit]

Ex-SAS man, Danny Nightingale was convicted of possessing an Iraqi live pistol and ammunition. There was an outcry at the time and that led to him being re tried this week. It all seems very confused so far...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23195542

What do you make of it?

[T&S]

Listen, he was in the wrong. He had a weapon and rounds at his home. He should not have brought the, back. Simple.

[Kevink]

"He should not have brought the, back. Simple."

Not that simple, as he's now claiming that he didn't bring it back, and that it was planted. It's always a good idea to familiarise your self with the story before commenting.

[sandyRoe]

Yet he admitted in an interview, under caution, that he did bring it back.

[T&S]

Never said that before did he?

[T&S]

" good idea to familiarise your self with the story before commenting."

Well said....

[Kissmequik]

"What do you make of it? "

I think he's a liar as is his lawyer who probably advised him to deny that he made the first statement and if anyone points out that he admitted to it in the first instance he could blame this on his "pts" and "brain Injury" seeing that the public were behind him and a full acquittal could be easily gotten.

I felt sorry for him at the beginning when he appeared to be a downtrodden sick ex military guy who made a genuine accident when all the time he was a vindictive, slimy and smug liar who thinks nothing of denouncing all of his morals by being coached by a liar and lying himself in a court of our law. Disgusting and they should throw the book at him but unfortunately he will walk free and we will then never again hear of this "Brain Injury" as he then goes on to lead a normal life.

[sandyRoe]

I did wonder about the brain injury that was so severe as to cause amnesia yet wasn't so bad as to have him medically discharged from a regiment whose menbers would need to be at the top of their game.

[Gromit]

// SAS soldiers denounced the verdict as unjust, and defence secretary Philip Hammond as well as several MPs in a House of Commons debate called for his release. A petition asking for the same gathered more than 100,000 signatures. On 29 November 2012 the court of appeal, considering Nightingale's exemplary service, reduced and suspended the original sentence pending a further hearing. On 13th March 2013, the original conviction was overturned and quashed by the Court of Appeal. //

[FredPuli43]

Counsel don't advise their clients to deny saying, anything Kissmequick. If the client denies it, of his own motion , that's another matter, and then counsel finds out for what reason the client denies it so that that can be explored and suitable questions put to witnesses. Doing what you suggest would be contrary to a basic rule of conduct, but can you imagine what would happen if the defendant said "I didn't want to deny saying that, but my counsel said I should" !

[sandyRoe]

The petition described him as an army medic who had suffered brain injuries. Its authors seem to have been economical with the truth.

[FredPuli43]

A retrial was ordered because the defendant was told he'd get a long sentence and was put under pressure to plead guilty.Nobody, let alone the Judge Advocate General,who I think was the offending party at court, should do that.

Having suffered that rebuff, the Army wants its pound of flesh (or a proper trial of a serious matter, if you prefer)

[Gromit]

Here is are the proceedings from Nightingales original Court Martial.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/nightingale-proceedings-0607112012.pdf

The following exchange is revealing...

JUDGE ADVOCATE: So Mr Winter would it be right that at the time of the interview at the latest he seemed to have regained his memory as to how he came by the Glock?
MR WINTER (for the defence): He may have done or he may have confabulated, that is the problem. By his plea we have accepted that he has regained a memory of having received it in Iraq but he does not know and the science is not sufficiently sophisticated to be able to say one way or the other, but this board is to proceed upon the basis that that is in fact an accurate memory for the purposes of this sentencing hearing and therefore is an honest and true confession. //


He seems to have been in possession of a pyrotechnic device which was not added to the list of charges.

[Kissmequik]

What's a pyrotechnic device? Are we talking about a flaregun as well?

[Gromit]

// JUDGE ADVOCATE: Colonel, I have had a quick look at the charge sheet which does seem to have changed slightly, not in any great respect but I suspect that the pyrotechnic items have come out have they?

COL BARNETT Prosecution): Yes your honour. The short description of what has taken place here is that the defence expert, Mr Boyce, has done a report which says that the item that he inspected was not a firearm contrary to section 51(aba). The prosecution has got, though, an expert report which says yes it is not a firearm contrary to that but it is a firearm contrary to section 1(1)(a).

[Kissmequik]

Gromit im not in the law field so don't know the difference between firearm law section 51(aba) and firearm law section 1(1)(a).

What exactly was the pyrotechnic? It does sound like it was a flaregun or flare device to me.

[chrisgel]

Possibly a stun grenade.

[Kissmequik]

Wouldn't that be classed as an explosive device chrisgel?

[FredPuli43]

Firearms Act 1968 s 1(1) (a) is for any firearm except air weapons and certain shotguns; it forbids possession.

Section 51 deals with the maximum sentences and mode of trial for all the offences under the Act. So it appears to be an argument, without more detail, of what offence and punishment fits the evidence

[Gromit]

The trial proceeding are fascinating reading.

[chrisgel]

I'm not sure if I've called it the right name. I've heard them called "Flash Bangs" before. There for disorientatiing the enemy and don't do much physical damage.