[Closed] For your consideration - campaign to "Release an Unfairly Jailed War Hero"

I think the general consensus over at ARRSE was that you shouldn't be bringing firearms back home as war trophies and that the judge gave him the lowest possible sentence he could as incarceration for the possession of an illegal firearm is mandatory.

He also had a stash of ammo including armour piercing rounds and his flat mate had a live grenade all in their off base quarters . The sentence is to prevent soldiers leaving lethal kit laying around where any burglar could find it and represents a massive draw back from the legal "minimum" sentence of 5 years.

This could get messy 😆

It does seem pretty "fair" to me.

"Lenient" even ?

Technically he didn't bring it back.Whilst he was accompanying a body back to the UK his regiment shipped out. his bags were packed for him and shipped the UK. It is usual for the MP to check for weapons as they pack up- this procedure was not followed which is why he ended up in this predicament.

From what I'd read he was intending to take it back anyway and that it would have been okay had it been kept at work and handed to the regiment for deactivation. It's when it was taken outside of work that it became an issue.

There was a case of a squaddy killing his ex with a war trophy kalashnikov and quite a few cases of squaddies brining illegal weapons into the uk, they're trying to clamp down on it and this will probably serve as a warning.

A miscarriage of justice may have occurred here but the fact that he is a 'war hero' is completely irrelevant.

He didnt bring it back. He'd also suffered memory loss due to a fall in the jungle and didnt even realise it was there.
This chap is a friend of a friend and is very well regarded, even in those circles. Exemplary record. This isn't a case of a squaddie taking a trophy weapon home and they have pretty easy access to weapons (breakout bags etc) without having to risk their careers for the sake of a glock.

Nah only himself to blame, even back in the eighties when I was in the forces we new the consequences of bringing back weapons and ammo from theatres of war!

No sympathy what so ever.

What it seems to come down to, is...
He didn't intend for the gun to come back to the UK- it was packed up with other stuff and sent back by other people.
He hadn't opened the container it was in- so did he know what was in it? That part's a bit vague

It's not a miscarriage of justice as there are no real mitigating factors that would let you off the hook for having a section 5 firearm lying around the house - bar if you've just bought a house and you find one under the floorboards etc. The offence is the possession of the firearm not the circumstances surrounding it.

What it seems to come down to, is...
He didn't intend for the gun to come back to the UK- it was packed up with other stuff and sent back by other people.
He hadn't opened the container it was in- so did he know what was in it?

He had wanted to bring it back to the UK as a gift to the regiment. So I should imagine his mates packed it with that in mind.

What if someone put one in your house?
That's pretty much what happened here.

He'd also suffered memory loss due to a fall in the jungle and didnt even realise it was there.

Is it really normal for anyone so affected to be trusted with weapons? That is a quite laughably pathetic lawyers gambit, that really does his credibility more damage than good.

Yet was readily accepted by the defence and judge due to expert witness.
What I don't get is why his mates put the weapon in his MFO box and not in the Sqn weapons valise?

What if someone put one in your house?
That's pretty much what happened here.

This more or less sums it up. He pleaded guilty as the consequences of fighting it and losing were quite dire.

It's not illegal to be sent dodgey stuff because you're not responsible for your post. It's not illegal not to open your post, so if you had an unopened item of post that contained something illegal, there would presumably be an argument in law to say that you were not responsible for that item.

But the prosecution's argument would have been that he was 'being sent his stuff' and knew that his stuff contained a pistol.

The counter argument would have been that he didn't remember having a pistol.

And they decided not to gamble. I think they were sensible.

The gun was in his wardrobe, in it's case and he had;

122 x 9mm live rounds of ammunition
40 x 7.62mm live rounds of ammunition
50 x 9mm frangible rounds of ammunition
50 x 338 armour piercing live rounds of ammunition
2 x .308 live rounds of ammunition
74 x 5.56mm live rounds of ammunition

under his bed. Not exactly put in his house.

So, he pleaded guilty because his excuse for possession really wasn't credible, and pleading not guilty would likely have resulted in a far longer sentence. Now he is trying to wage a media campaign, playing up to the "our brave boys gawd bless em" mentality to try and excuse his crime.

Doesn't wash with me.

Here's a post from Arrse that is more or less what I thought.

+1 to the post above as well. Pleaded guilty because he knew his defence was unsound.

Edited to add: Let's no be confused by the evidence of his memory; this was all after the fact of importing and storing the weapon. In other words he appeared to be of sound mind when he allowed the weapon to be imported to the UK (not that he was charged with that) and then stored it. Unless he was completely bonkers from the moment he was allegedly handed the weapon by Iraqi LN, there is, it appears, no defence. Furthermore, no alternative explanation of how he came to be in possession of the weapon (not that this would be a credible defence under this law).

The gun was in his wardrobe, in it's case and he had;

122 x 9mm live rounds of ammunition
40 x 7.62mm live rounds of ammunition
50 x 9mm frangible rounds of ammunition
50 x 338 armour piercing live rounds of ammunition
2 x .308 live rounds of ammunition
74 x 5.56mm live rounds of ammunition

under his bed. Not exactly put in his house.

LMAO apparently he's read to much Chris Ryan and decided because he's special forces having a personal armoury in your house is perfectly legal and also a good idea! Jeeze

His memory loss and struggle to rebuild his brain is genuine and inspiring but to my mind the timing did not fit easily with his account the gun was back in the UK in his possession well before the memory loss and still in his possession along with the load of ammunition after his recovery. The court martial seemed to be very sympathetic and sent a strong message that he should not lose his job.

In the words of a friend of mine....if he wasn't 22 but say REME... he would have been thrown out for leaving that kind of shit lying round his house....

Signed. Served for 17yrs. Put his arse on the line. Good luck fella.

He was selection DS was he not? Probably a little more reason for having live ammo than a VM 😀

Signed. Served for 17yrs. Put his arse on the line. Good luck fella.

What other jobs do you think should allow a free pass to commit crimes?

Yeah, it seems that the war stock of assorted ammo under the bed pretty much scuppered the 'it was in a box and I forgot about it' excuse for the pistol in the wardrobe 😐

I think that he's a very lucky boy that the CM called for him to be kept and allowed to 'soldier on' after his sentence.

In other news, once again it seems that its not more firearms laws that are needed, but proper application of the ones already in place

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/19/ipcc-report-guns-atherton-bbc

You know why Lady Justice usually has a blindfold on in statues, don't you?

MSP, what a stupid comment.

Nahh, I'm inclined to agree with MSP. Letting him off the hook would encourage any pongo lacking a few brain cells to bring home firearms.

Says the opposite to me. Serve your country faithfully for 17yrs and get made an example of for something that couldve been sorted a bit more diplomatically given his length of distinguished service.

It was dealt with diplomatically, they gave him the lowest sentence they legally could and let him stay in the forces. He won't end up doing the full 18 months, he'll effectively be having a gap year in a prison thinking about what an idiot he's been. As opposed to spending 5-10 years in the slammer with a discharge.

Says the opposite to me. Serve your country faithfully for 17yrs and get made an example of for something that couldve been sorted a bit more diplomatically given his length of distinguished service.

FFS he had his own personal arsenal in his bedroom, he excuse wasn't credible, but by entering a plea he got treated leniently.
You just seem to have taken his lawyers statement as gospel without actually thinking about what he was doing.

Agreeing with MSP there

Yeah thats why 30,000 people have signed his petition and counting.... sometimes things are just right 😉

Surprised that his family have gone down the applying-pressure-via-the-media route.

I would have thought that for a guy in the SAS, doing 18 months in a military prison isn't going to be [i]that[/i] traumatic? I thought he'd got ten years or something when I saw that there was a media campaign for him.

Says the opposite to me. [B]Serve your country faithfully for 17yrs and get made an example of [/b]for something that couldve been sorted a bit more diplomatically given his length of distinguished service.

As MSP said then.....

what other Jobs do you think should come with a free pass to commit crimes ?

Yeah thats why 30,000 people have signed

Yeh, coz that's what we need is people responding to a media campaigns succeeding in overturning court decisions. Just as well have a "get 50000 people to click like on Facebook" Coz that's how law should work.

And what are these people basing there judgement on, because if it's the links provided in the OP it isn't enough.

Yeah thats why 30,000 people have signed

30,000 people are uninformed idiots.

Yeah, a mate who's in the forces passed this around on FB - it sounded a bit dodgy to me so I looked into it some more as well. Really, he got off lightly - people have got a lot more for less.

I'm not the right person to judge if someone is a war hero (I don't equate wars and heroes if I'm honest) but from the Telegraph article it sounded like while he was out of the country his mates had packed his stuff up sent it home and he'd never really known what was in it - I had some sympathy.

Unfortunately that was eroded somewhat by the suggestion that the had enough ammo to take on a small army stashed at home. Now I accept not everything on t'interweb is true, not even on STW, but I'm struggling to feel sorry for him.

And to think, based on those I've met (not to be fair a large sample), the special forces guys are normally the intelligent ones.

Do the people signing the petition know he was moving the gun around in this country before his tragic memory loss or that it was out of his gorilla box and in his wardrobe after? Do they know about the ammo do they know it was all miles off base in accommodation no more secure than a student shared house? Have they even thought what would happen if a handgun and armour piercing ammo fell into a burglar's hands.

Are the supporting the story as presented be the torygraph and his wife or making an informed judgment on the facts of the case?

A sad case and the panel aren't idiots/knee-jerkers are they? I'm no expert in Court Martials (i.e zero knowledge) but do they tend to be fair rather than rigid letter of the law or do they look at other factors? I imagine (again I don't know) that its drilled into you how serious it is about firearms off barracks etc from the moment you join?

I can't sign the petition as I don't know enough still. I wish him all the best and if it is unfortunate it will come out/hope hes released and back.

The Police have a hell of a job when firearms get into the UK.

Hora it is "Courts Martial " not Court Martials . The judgement is linked above . There were a number of standing orders he breached as well as the general criminal law . The panel are all serving soldiers aside from the Judge Advocate who is an experienced lawyer . My experience is that they are very fair and my reading of this case was that they went out of there way to do justice to a very complex case with a great deal of sympathy for the defendant . They did not impose the legal minimum of 5 years by finding exceptional circumstances and they suggested that he should be retained . The other linked soldier got 6 months longer and is not complaining .

Thank you.

Indeed it does seem justice has been very fair, applied a punishment that will hopefully allow him to learn his lesson without destroying his life, and allow rehabilitation back into his career.

Lets be honest, it is not the same ending that usually results from civilian courts.

The 5 year legal minimum is not relevant. There is no legal minimum in military court. They could have demoted him, fined him, whatever (the idea of giving a SF sgt ROPs complete with show parades makes me giggle a bit).
I didn't realise that he was going to be permitted to soldier on. Quite pleased with that. Aside from loss of 18 months pay and a stay at the glass house (which won't be hugely difficult for someone like this), he's not lost too much (assuming he's not being bust to trooper).

The 5 year legal minimum is not relevant

Well it is when viewed from outside the system, it very much looks like a lesser punishment is being applied than that expected by wider society.

"The 5 year legal minimum is not relevant. There is no legal minimum in military court"
interesting point wrecker where do you get it from? The judge advocate the prosector and the defence advocate all thought the 5 year minimum applied? As did all the court in the linked soldiers case.

"MR WINTER: Now may I just, your honour, just briefly in respect of the law, because as your honour mentioned yesterday obviously the provisions of section 51A are raised in this case, and for the benefit of you gentlemen this is a provision of The Firearms Act of 1968, which in certain circumstances requires there to be a minimum period of imprisonment for possession of prohibited firearms of 5 years unless there are exceptional circumstances in play. We submit that there are plainly such exceptional circumstances in play in this case,"

Interestingly i today heard a rummour (and no more than that) that a certain unit has had a flood of trophy wepons turn up in their amnesty boxes.

Indeed it does seem justice has been very fair, applied a punishment that will hopefully allow him to learn his lesson without destroying his life, and allow rehabilitation back into his career.

Lets be honest, it is not the same ending that usually results from civilian courts.

This we cannot really allow people [ no matter whether you wish to describe them as a hero or a trained killer]to have their own personal armoury under their beds- I would imagine he was very clear on the rules

I don't believe that everyone thought the civilian legal minimum applied, more made reference to, in case the judge was considering applying it. This is a courts martial, not a civil court.
I've seen blokes discharged without charge when found by military police with class A drugs. Obviously civil police would have slapped him with a possession charge. I've also seen a bloke jailed (who now serves in the same unit as the above chap) for using a Landrover to pick some lads up from town! (he was on duty) Civil and Military laws are clearly very different things, and so are the punishments. Try getting a civil court to hear a "bringing the army into disrepute" case (the old "catch-all"). The judge in this case could give whatever punishment she saw fit (I think).

I've also seen a bloke jailed (who now serves in the same unit as the above chap) for using a Landrover to pick some lads up from town! (he was on duty)

So jailed for stealing a car, how long did he get?

LOL. That's some imagination you have there.

Sorry wrecker but you are wrong the civil law and sentencing applies in this case the judgment linked above which is a verbatim transcript explains that . I have only done 4 Courts Martial in 20 years so would be happy to be corrected but can't find anything to say this was not a 5 year minimum case the reason less was imposed is that most if not all minimum sentence provisions have an exceptional circumstances get out clause.

Lesser offences may well be felt with internally but once the case goes to Court Martial while it is tried under the army act the "civil" criminal law applies.

He pleaded guilty and is now complaining of the sentence? Bizarre.

LOL. That's some imagination you have there.

So what do you call taking a car without permission? Do you think it should be considered less of an offence to steal a military vehicle than the one of your driveway? or is it just soldiers that should be allowed special dispensation?

ps. We have a pool car here for official business, if I took it to pick some mates up from the pub, I would lose my job, he didn't so he got off lightly.

I'd be surprised to see anyone get jailed for nicking a car..
My bezza was discharged for stealing a military vehicle, going awol and driving under the influence of drugs..

no criminal charges were brought

2.15 Sentencing Guidelines
The Act requires the court to “have regard to” any guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council [SC] that are relevant to the offender’s case [s 259(1)]. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s 125(1), which requires a court to “follow” any relevant sentencing guidelines, does not apply to the Court Martial. The Act permits the court to depart from those guidelines if in its opinion the departure is justified by any features of Service life or of the Service disciplinary system that are relevant to the case [s 259(2)]. The SC Guidelines do not take into account the different range of sentencing options available to the Court Martial. This Sentencing Guide supplements the SC guidelines in relation to criminal conduct offences and provides examples of such features and differences. When explaining the court’s reasons for sentence, the judge should explain whether there is any departure from the SC guidelines and state what features of Service life or of the Service disciplinary system justifies any departure. There are no SC guidelines in relation to Service disciplinary offences; this guide provides the only available guidance and the judge should explain any departure from it when giving the court’s reasons for sentence.

I don't think a Courts Martial is under any obligation to follow any of the sentencing councils' guidance. Please feel free to prove me wrong though 😀

So what do you call taking a car without permission?

My bezza was discharged for stealing a military vehicle, going awol and driving under the influence of drugs

Yunki I am shocked , you have a mate in the army 😉

He should have known better than anyone that your not allowed to keep guns at home. Whats with the loads of ammunition as well. Irrelevant if he is war hero or not he is a professional solider so should know the rules. To be fair he probably doesn't deserve to go to prison, should have just been demote.

thanks for that wrecker i see where you are comming from but this is a case about a legal minimum sentence not a SGC guideline case . The SGC give guidlines as to how a sentencer should chose a sentence from the legaly permisable options.As you say the guidlelines apply in millitary cases but the court is not required to follow them.But that is not relevent to this case.

The 5 year minimum for a firearms offence is set in the statute not a guideline issued by an advisory body which is why this is a minimum sentence case why every one in court refered to it as such and why such care was taken to identify the exceptional circumstances applied.

By way of illustration if you look at the guidelines for production of class A drugs the law fixes the maximum sentence at life imprisonment however the guidelines top out at 16 years. Demonstrating that Guidelines are guidelines not law.

Happy to accept that crankboy. You obviously have superior knowledge about this. Just how extenuating could they have found the (or any) circumstances? Enough to avoid a custodial if they had seen fit?

wrecker that last point is where my interest in the case kicks in in a very nerdy way Mr Winters submission was that once you find exceptional circumstances then sentance is "at large" and the court sentences as it sees fit, the judge suggests that you use the 5 years as a starting point . so Winter would be thinking up to custody the judje thinking down from 5 years.

Whether custody could have been avoided in this case i doubt very much, a substantial amount of ammo and a gun insecure for a long time . The judge took a view that custody was needed as a public protection issue. The evil in the case is not what was the defendant going to do but the risk of the items falling into the wrong hands see all the refrences to a hypothetical burglar.

There was a case recently of the bloke who innocently found a shotgun kept it safe over night then walked it in to a police station he was convicted under the same section i would have said his case would be one where a non custodial sentence or suspended sentance could be passed.

What a waste of time this 'petition' is. He got a very fair and proportinate sentance I reckon. Justice served properly I'd say.

Agree with above, hell be out before a year. If hes done 17 years he knows the rules.

I reckon he'll be out for Christmas. I don't think that you get time off for good behaviour in colly though (crankboy?)
If he gets top marks in his room inspections, he will get to listen to a radio for a week. Happy days.

Does anyone of you keyboard warriors know the full facts? I don't and I don't pretend to so cannot make a fully informed comment. I also don't normally get into these debates. I do however know friends of the family. I also know the police were not interested in pursuing the matter any further, which I am sure would not be the case if he had an arsenal in his bedroom with no explanation. So all we collectively know is what is reported and that the Army legal eagles decided to prosecute. Some people on here seem very keen to judge someone who has served his country for 17 years, had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the police and is just about to have his family evicted from their house. FYI he was threatened with the minimum 5 years unless he pleaded guilty. And a lot of the forces are very upset at the way he has been treated. Try doing something useful instead of slandering someone you know nothing about.

I have no need to Judge him.

It's already been done, and by an appropriate body.

I also know the police were not interested in pursuing the matter any further, which I am sure would not be the case if he had an arsenal in his bedroom with no explanation.

So all we collectively know is what is reported and that the Army legal eagles decided to prosecute.

Some people on here seem very keen to judge someone who has served his country for 17 years

had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the police

and is just about to have his family evicted from their house

many of us may feel more comfortable that he hel;d this weapon than the local drug delaer or gangster but in relaity I would prefer neither of them had illegally held firarms and ammunition under their bed whilst so ill they forgot they had it.

Whether he is agood man who did something stupid or not I dont know but it seems the most likely explanation.

I also know the police were not interested in pursuing the matter any further, which I am sure would not be the case if he had an arsenal in his bedroom with no explanation.

That would be because as stated in the transcript it was a military matter;

"...given that this was essentially a military matter and the military nexus was such that this is a matter which could more properly dealt with by the military authorities, the matter was transferred quite properly from the civilian authorities through the Military Police and hence to the Service Prosecuting Authority and hence it finds its way to this court as opposed to any other."

So all we collectively know is what is reported and that the Army legal eagles decided to prosecute.

No we have the full transcript available to read and tbh a lot more detail than the daily telegraph's reports of the case.

Some people on here seem very keen to judge someone who has served his country for 17 years, had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the police

Have you any evidence that he had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the police?

Call Me Dave is currently in power with his buddies.

Proof that a bunch of idiots can change things.

Isn't 'The Sun' still the most popular paper in the UK?? 'nuff said.

[quote=mikeconnor]
What a waste of time this 'petition' is. He got a very fair and proportinate sentance I reckon. Justice served properly I'd say.

Personally I think people should stand up and say something if they don't feel it is right.

Maybe Rosa Parks should have just shut up and Given her seat away !!?

Personally I think people should stand up and say something if they don't feel it is right.

I'm glad you've3 finally seen sense. good to know that posting on internet forums can influence people's opinions.

I have no problem with people signing a petetion, just that I think it's a waste of time. any judge must look at the facts of the case, and not be influenced by any outside opinion. Otherwise we may as well employ lynch mobs and do away with the entire justice system.

Maybe Rosa Parks should have just shut up and Given her seat away !!?

Very good. will you be carryioing on this theme ion any furutre discussions? Just that such behaviour makes you look a little desperate is all. A gracious concession that you were in error was all that was needed really.

can you at least keep your spat to just one thread?
{is not taking sides]

Ah too slow - perhaps you could e-mail each other?

At least it makes me consistant mike.

Something you might want to look into 🙄

[Quote=Mikeconnor]...you may feel it's a [s]trivial matter[/s] "waste of time", but others think differently to you. Aren;'t they allowed to do so? Or are you alone the arbiter of thought?

OK, after this I'm out as it's personal, which probably influences me somewhat.
I haven't read the media reports (or the court transcript) and as per my previous post I don't pretend to have all the facts. Also I'll probably end up losing my temper which is pretty silly on a forum, especially with fellow cyclists, many whose comments on here I often respect and agree with.
I do know that the police originally passed it over "as there was no criminal intent" and many feel that this is a harsh error of judgement by the army that will hopefully be put right by the powers that be.
Best of luck to Danny.

has anyone figured out why he's a 'war hero' yet ?

has anyone figured out why he's a 'war hero' yet ?

11 years in the worlds most highly regarded special forces unit qualifies IMHO. You may not agree, but you won't change my view.

I would agree with that, I'm not sure his status as a war hero is in any way relevant though ?

11 years in the [s]worlds[/s]britain's most highly regarded special forces unit

that one's free.

so shouldn't it be enough to claim 'sas man jailed' without the jingoistic rhetoric ?

I do know that the police originally passed it over "as there was no criminal intent"

intent doesnt come into it. The relevant offence is possession, no intent is needed, and the minimal sentence in a civilian court is 5 years.

"Possession: Section 1(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 creates an absolute offence." From CPS website.

All the petition shows is that 30,000 are moved by newspaper campaigns. Tabloid readers also set fire to paediatricians houses....