Soldier Danny Nightingale released

[Johnuk123]

http://news.sky.com/story/1018457/nightingale-jailed-sas-sniper-walks-free

From Sky, SAS Soldier Danny Nightingale gets his sentence changed to a suspended one

Jailed SAS sniper Danny Nightingale has walked free from court after his sentence was suspended following a successful appeal.
Sergeant Nightingale was given 18 months military detention earlier this month after he admitted illegally possessing a Glock 9mm pistol and more than 300 rounds of ammunition.
Now judges at the Court Martial Appeal Court in London have cut the term to 12 months and said it should be suspended. They said he could be released immediately.

Excellent news, I had hoped the Court of Appeal would see sense.

He invented a new dressing, known as the Nightingale dressing, it's used in British and American special forces and extensively in the NHS. It has saved hundreds of lives.

Makes you wonder what is going on in this country when guys like him are locked up while foreign war lords and terrorists are walking the streets.

 

[SS4]

It makes me thankful we have trial by court and not trial by media. It's all very well and good inventing a device that saves lives but that doesn't give you a get out of jail free card you know.
By the way your last line is much easier said than done but for teh lulz how do you propose we get them off the street?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The question I always like to pose in these scenarios is if someone Sky didn't like was in the same position.

 

[Nym]

By the way your last line is much easier said than done but for teh lulz how do you propose we get them off the street?

A sustained police investigation combined with a legal system that doesn't protect those who want to cause significant harm to those who it aught to protect?

 

[SS4]

A sustained police investigation combined with a legal system that doesn't protect those who want to cause significant harm to those who it aught to protect?

You're right of course. I'm just sick of the Press making it seem like the police don't wish to catch terrorists/warlords/"real" criminals* because they're petty and would rather harass a poor serviceman/mother/family* because it's easier.

* Delete as appropriate

 

[Nym]

You're right of course. I'm just sick of the Press making it seem like the police don't wish to catch terrorists/warlords/"real" criminals* because they're petty and would rather harass a poor serviceman/mother/family* because it's easier.

* Delete as appropriate

It's more a comment on the DoJ than than the Home Office tbh.

 

[Oswyntail]

.. a poor serviceman..

... who "forgot" he had an illegal weapon and nearly 400 rounds of ammunition. Yes, he had a brain injury, which impaired his memory, but I am sure there are rules in place that perhaps suggest he should have declared the gift to his superiors. Would there have been a similar outcry if he had accepted the agricultural produce of the local warlords as a gift? Why would anyone think it was acceptable to keep the thing?

 

[GB]

On what grounds was the appeal upheld?

What was the timeline for receiving the firearm and getting a brain injury?

 

[Butts]

... who "forgot" he had an illegal weapon and nearly 400 rounds of ammunition. Yes, he had a brain injury, which impaired his memory, but I am sure there are rules in place that perhaps suggest he should have declared the gift to his superiors. Would there have been a similar outcry if he had accepted the agricultural produce of the local warlords as a gift? Why would anyone think it was acceptable to keep the thing?

If he'd just had the gun that would have been acceptable - but the ammunition as well

Poor chap had a brain injury but if he'd taken a funny turn an empty revolver cannot do much harm !!

 

[jon0844]

I don't think he should have his conviction quashed.. I think the situation as it is solves the problem. He's free, it's a suspended sentence - but he has still be done for what was clearly illegal.

The best outcome. Anything more and you start to show a bias that has already been highlighted above. It would, for one, make it harder to prosecute others caught with weapons who would cite this case as a defence.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes I have to say this is the best outcome. He's clearly done something illegal but it just didn't seem fair, to me atl east, to put him in jail for it. Giving him a suspended sentence to me feels like the best outcome.

 

[Greenback]

I agree too. I was surprised to hear he was appealing against his conviction, being as he pleaded guilty to the offence.

 

[AlterEgo]

He invented a new dressing, known as the Nightingale dressing, it's used in British and American special forces and extensively in the NHS. It has saved hundreds of lives.

What's that got to do with the conviction for illegally possessing a firearm?

 

[Johnuk123]

I agree too. I was surprised to hear he was appealing against his conviction, being as he pleaded guilty to the offence.

He was badly advised by his lawyers to plead guilty as they thought he would get either a small jail sentence or a suspended one.

 

[GB]

He was badly advised by his lawyers to plead guilty as they thought he would get either a small jail sentence or a suspended one.

Not sure how he could have pleaded anything but guilty. Also not sure how he can hope (or expect) to have his conviction overturned.

 

[Greenback]

Badly advised or not, surely if someone makes a plea of guilty means that they have admitted to whatever crime they have been charged with?

Is it really OK to say afterwards, 'Oh, I am not really guilty, I was told to say that so that it would go easier on me, I'm really innocent, can we start everything again as I didn't get the outcome my advisers thought I'd get?'

 

[Johnuk123]

Badly advised or not, surely if someone makes a plea of guilty means that they have admitted to whatever crime they have been charged with?

Is it really OK to say afterwards, 'Oh, I am not really guilty, I was told to say that so that it would go easier on me, I'm really innocent, can we start everything again as I didn't get the outcome my advisers thought I'd get?'

Although it isn't applicable in this case if anybody pleads guilty then technically they're admitting to it.

By your reckoning if anybody has received rough treatment or has been mentally scared by interview then pleads guilty they have undoubtedly committed the crime.

I doubt a week goes by in most police stations when an innocent suspect pleads guilty, it's commonplace.

 

[swj99]

Is it really OK to say afterwards, 'Oh, I am not really guilty, I was told to say that so that it would go easier on me, I'm really innocent, can we start everything again as I didn't get the outcome my advisers thought I'd get?'

I believe so. Appealing a guilty plea is permissible in English law, the test being whether the plea was a true acknowledgement of guilt. The argument in this case, I would imagine, is that it was not.

 

[Greenback]

Although it isn't applicable in this case if anybody pleads guilty then technically they're admitting to it.

By your reckoning if anybody has received rough treatment or has been mentally scared by interview then pleads guilty they have undoubtedly committed the crime.

I doubt a week goes by in most police stations when an innocent suspect pleads guilty, it's commonplace.

I believe that is quite common and it is often argued in court that the defendant only said they did it so that they could get out of the police station.

I'm not sure it's that common to plead guilty in court and then claim afterwards to be innocent, but I'm sure that it has happened. My question is really about how much weight the original plea should carry in any appeal.

I believe so. Appealing a guilty plea is permissible in English law, the test being whether the plea was a true acknowledgement of guilt. The argument in this case, I would imagine, is that it was not.

The question that I would like to see addressed in every such appeal, is why the first plea was made.

I may be an idealist, but I don't like to see members of the legal profession encouraging clients to plead guilty if the client is maintaining their innocence just so that they could get a reduced sentence. Fair enough if the defendant admits the crime, but otherwise we have situations like this, which is unsatisfactory for all.

 

[tony_mac]

I may be an idealist, but I don't like to see members of the legal profession encouraging clients to plead guilty if the client is maintaining their innocence just so that they could get a reduced sentence. Fair enough if the defendant admits the crime, but otherwise we have situations like this, which is unsatisfactory for all.

It seems that 90% of convictions in the US are as a result of a 'plea bargain'. I am sure there must be many innocent people who plead guilty in order to avoid the risk of a prison sentence.

It's also perfectly possible for someone to plead guilty, when they aren't, because they don't actually know the law.

 

[bb21]

If it has been established that he illegally possessed firearms, I cannot see how the guilty verdict can possibly be overturned.

It would make a mockery of the justice system if so. So he invented something useful to the military. Give him a medal and a prize for that. Write him into history if necessary. That does not however absolve him of other responsibilities.

Just because he did something wrong does not make him a bad guy.

 

[Greenback]

It seems that 90% of convictions in the US are as a result of a 'plea bargain'. I am sure there must be many innocent people who plead guilty in order to avoid the risk of a prison sentence.

It's also perfectly possible for someone to plead guilty, when they aren't, because they don't actually know the law.

Just becaus eit happens in the US doesn't make it a good thing!

And it's more the advice being given by legal people that I am uncomfortable about. Perhaps I am a bit old fashioned, in that I like to keep my good name! I like to think I would not admit to soemthing I haven't done just for an easier outcome.

On the other hand, I accept it's a different thing if you don't know if you have inadvertently broken a law unless you are so told by an expert.

 

[Temple Meads]

Unfortunately people don't generally keep a gun and ammunition unless they think there is the potential for them to use it at some point...

In any case it's rather nasty thinking about what could have happened if his kid(s) had found it, or his house be burgled and the gun fall into the hands of career criminals...

Despite what I've said above, this guy obviously does deserve some special treatment, and the gun is out of the way now.