By: Grey Area - 16th March 2013 at 17:52
Public opinion won’t be one of the three officers that decide Sgt Nightingale’s case, though. (Assuming that he faces a District Court Martial rather than a General one.)
By: John Green - 16th March 2013 at 14:07
In this case the talented Sgt. Nightingale has the backing of public opinion, don’t underestimate it. Think Tony Martin. In not the same situation or anything like it but, still with a tremendous swell of public opinion.
By: Grey Area - 16th March 2013 at 13:03
Don’t ignore the hefty weight of public opinion. I understand from a reply I received from Sgt. Nightingale in Colchester that he had a huge mail response in support.
That proves he’s popular, but it doesn’t prove his guilt or innocence.
We’re talking about the course of justice here, not Britains’s Got Talent. 🙂
By: John Green - 16th March 2013 at 12:56
Don’t ignore the hefty weight of public opinion. I understand from a reply I received from Sgt. Nightingale in Colchester that he had a huge mail response in support.
Oft times in these cases, it’s not just the bare bones of justice that counts !
By: Grey Area - 15th March 2013 at 23:50
As a serving soldier, he had a quite reasonable excuse that, added to the weight of public anger, might preclude any guilty verdict. See 10 above for the sentence.
The gun and ammo in question, as I understand it, weren’t Army issue – please correct me if I’m wrong – but a gift given to him in Iraq.
Being a serving soldier doesn’t place him (or anyone else) above either the law or Queen’s Regs.
I agree with Jim: guilty verdict, time already served taken into consideration, don’t do it again you silly sod and off you jolly well pop.
By: Lincoln 7 - 15th March 2013 at 14:35
In the circumstances that I have read about, I think it will be a slap on the wrist, and swept under the carpet.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: John Green - 15th March 2013 at 11:45
Not necessarily so ! As a serving soldier, he had a quite reasonable excuse that, added to the weight of public anger, might preclude any guilty verdict. See 10 above for the sentence.
By: Grey Area - 14th March 2013 at 21:22
My opinion: I don’t think there’ll be a guilty verdict.
The facts of the case would seem to indicate otherwise.
I don’t think he’ll spend any more time in prison, though, whether military or civilian.
By: John Green - 14th March 2013 at 17:52
Re 8 & 9
Grey Area & Paul 178
Correct. it is a Courts Martial under the SPA rather than the civilian CPS. My opinion: I don’t think there’ll be a guilty verdict. In any event Sgt. Nightingale cannot be given a sentence that is more than the 12 months prison suspended, that was doled out at his appeal.
By: paul178 - 13th March 2013 at 22:43
Not so fast BumbleBee ! He now has no criminal record and will face a re-trial only if the CPS proceed. They did decline the first time around.
I believe he has to face a Court Martial now
By: Grey Area - 13th March 2013 at 22:22
Thanks for the info, chaps.
Surely the case would lie within the jurisdiction of the Service Prosecuting Authority rather than the Crown Prosecution Service, John?
I would imagine that he’ll be found guilty at the retrial (an offence does appear to have taken place, and no-one is above the law) but that clemency will be shown.
I can’t imagine that he’ll be seeing the inside of the glasshouse again any time soon, if ever.
By: John Green - 13th March 2013 at 19:06
Grey Area
Yes, you are right, there were strong mitigating factors. Although I’m a former servicemen, and Sgt. Nightingale is currently serving, I’m not sure what the legal boundaries are that govern the possession of legitimately held firearms for someone in the Armed forces.
I would imagine that at the very least, they have to be securely held within a military property. I think I’m correct in writing that Sgt. Nightingale had a personal weapon at his home – as an oversight.
The CPS were invited to consider a prosecution and declined – presumably for lack of prima facie evidence.
By: charliehunt - 13th March 2013 at 18:59
By: Grey Area - 13th March 2013 at 18:01
I must have missed this one first time around, I have to admit.
Did he have the guns and ammo in his possession, and did he have the proper legal authority to hold them?
If not, I’m presuming there were some fairly major mitigating factors.
By: trumper - 13th March 2013 at 17:17
“Speaking outside the court, Sgt Nightingale thanked his supporters and said he was elated the “right decision” had been made, adding he would enter a not guilty plea at the retrial.
He said: “We will attack it with the same vigour and tenacity as we’ve done this. We will pursue it throughout.”
By: John Green - 13th March 2013 at 16:52
Not so fast BumbleBee ! He now has no criminal record and will face a re-trial only if the CPS proceed. They did decline the first time around.
By: BumbleBee - 13th March 2013 at 16:29
Not that good,he’s to have a retrial.
Sign In
March 13, 2013 at 4:20 pm