Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Unflip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Unflip

1 2 3

News

Serving soldier attacks a woman and escapes jail because of his job

63 replies

tungthai · 30/05/2013 18:33

Sorry can't link on this phone. www.swindonadvertiser/news/proudofyourselfsergeant

A soldier launches a vicious attack on a female in a nightclub. The judge said ordinarily he would face a prison sentence but because of his exemplary service in the Army he gets away with a conditional discharge.

What sort of message does this send out?

I for sure do not feel comfortable with someone like him patrolling the streets of Afghanistan.

OP posts:

Report

NiceTabard · 08/06/2013 22:39

There are fuller reports on the net that fill in the detail that I alluded to in my post. The DM was one I think.

NiceTabard · 08/06/2013 22:38

disgusting and lewd behaviour can be illegal, eve. Especially if it is against a child.

It is not legal in the UK for an adult to try to get a young child to touch their genitals. I am a bit surprised that you think it is TBH.

LtEveDallas · 05/06/2013 05:37

I didn't get all that from your link NiceTabard. What he did was disgusting, but it doesn't say he touched the child and the judge advocate said there had been no sexual motive behind the behaviour, so TBH I really don't think he would have been fined £1000 for this offence at a civ court in UK. Plus I suppose the courts always give credit for a guilty plea, and he did plead guilty to both charges.

I'm not minimising or dismissive, just trying to see it logically.

He is obviously a nasty piece of work that was playing the 'big man' in front of his mates, and I'm very glad that he is no longer a soldier. Yes, I would be livid if this happened to my child, of course I would, but would the CPS prosecute this case if it was in UK? Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think they would. These crimes come under 'disgusting and lewd behaviour' rather than assault I think?

NiceTabard · 05/06/2013 00:04

Eve this was a group of men who were laughing at a 5 yo child, while one of them coaxed him to touch his genitals.

I'm not sure if you meant to be so dismissive? i mean, I'd be livid if someone pinched my arse, but if a group of men surrounded my 5yo child and tried to get her to touch one of them on the penis - that's a different thing surely? It is to me.

NiceTabard · 05/06/2013 00:00

There was another offence that he was found not guilty of but which was in a similar but worse line. So taken altogether I for one think he sounds dangerous. The child he was found guilty of trying to get to touch him was 5.

I would hope that in the UK a man who was found guilty of trying to get a 5 year old to touch his genitals, and had behaved aggresively towards another child, and who had at least one allegation of sexual assault, would be signing the sex offenders reg. at a min and psychologically assessed or something. A £1000 is simply a bizarre punishment for his offences. It does nothing to address anything.

About this court martial thing then, is it all the time someone is on operations (deployed?) then anything they do against civilians which is nothing to do with the military and is against civilians comes under court martial type thing?

LtEveDallas · 04/06/2013 22:45

So if a soldier commits a crime while as a soldier they always face a military court rather than a normal court whether in the country they committed the crime or at home?

No, only if the offence was committed on Operations, ie whilst in Afghan. Otherwise they come under the jurisdiction of the country the offence was committed in.

Say a US soldier based here murdered a civilian, they would be tried by US military court rather than UK or US civilian court?

I don't know if the US mil is run the same as ours, but if a UK soldier killed a US civilian whilst in US, then the US would deal with it.

Mil courts can only give a sentence of up to 2 years in military prison as well, so murder wouldn't be tried by a military court.

So with soldier x he was tried by a military court even by then he had left?

Yes but only because the offence was committed whilst on operations. If he did that to a Spanish Child in Spain then the Spanish system would deal with him, or if he did that to a child in UK the UK police/CPS would deal with him.

I think what he got was outrageous

If its just how it was reported then I think £1000 is probably more than a UK court would give him. I don't think he actually assaulted the boy, or made the boy actually touch him did he? I mean, not excusing him, but I'm not sure the CPS would persue a case like this in UK - How often do the UK police charge men for pinching a woman's arse for example. I think the Mil Court was probably, rightly, more harsh on him.

NiceTabard · 04/06/2013 22:11

So with soldier x he was tried by a military court even by then he had left?

I think what he got was outrageous.

NiceTabard · 04/06/2013 22:10

So if a soldier commits a crime while as a soldier they always face a military court rather than a normal court whether in the country they committed the crime or at home?

I don't understand much about the rules of this stuff.

Say a US soldier based here murdered a civilian, they would be tried by US military court rather than UK or US civilian court?

Is that right?

LtEveDallas · 04/06/2013 21:42

Soldier X, a former private who left the army after his tour of duty in Helmand, admitted pulling an Afghan boy's hand towards his crotch while serving in Afghanistan in December 2011

Thankfully soldier X is no longer serving. In fact he left the Army in 2012 and was returned to court as a civilian.

Soldier Y - a serving lance-corporal - admitted he was involved in having an Afghan man photographed with a racially-offensive sign, which read "Silly Paki", between 16 October 2011 and 6 January 2012

That's one of those horrible FB memes isn't it? Glad he was reduced in rank, that means a loss of about £300 a month and he won't be able to be promoted for 2 more years, so a total 'fine' of about £7K although I'd have preferred it is he was discharged - racism and/or racial abuse should be a no-brainer - kick them straight out.

They don't have any military courts in Afghan NiceTabard, the Judges are civilian so they won't go to a war zone. All the military courts are in UK or Germany (though soon will be UK only) and soldiers / witnesses / prosecutors et al are flown/driven in.

Darkesteyes · 04/06/2013 21:24

I saw that too Nice Tabard. I was going to link it to this thread too but you beat me to it.
These cases are fucking appalling.

NiceTabard · 04/06/2013 21:11

Another item in the news today reminded me of this thread:

here

Yet more preposterous sentences. Soldier "X" sounds like a danger to children to me, and he got fined £1000.

Takes the piss.

Why is this court martial stuff anyway, why aren't they tried in the country or in the UK? How does that work internationally?

delboysfileofax · 04/06/2013 01:53

"there is total censorship on any bad behaviour on the part of the military"

Really? That's why it was reported in the paper then?

WineNot · 04/06/2013 00:41

Which isn't to say I agree with non-custodial sentences for common assault, btw...

WineNot · 04/06/2013 00:33

Pretty sure that a lot of people charged with common assault would have received a similar sentence (i.e. non custodial).

munchkinmaster · 03/06/2013 23:41

I'm appalled. But to repeat the question asked earlier, why is it common assault not abh. I'm not sure about what a magistrate is either - as there was a chairman of the bench. Does this mean it was heard by a panel of three magistrates (ie lay people) rather than a local judge? What a messed up system!

LtEveDallas · 03/06/2013 23:04

No I agree NiceTabard. I wish that poor lady did know what will happen to him, and get some satisfaction from knowing it. I expect she heard 'Conditional Discharge' and thought 'smack on the wrist'. That's wrong.

The judge is a fool - there are a lot of punishments he could have given that would have the same affect on the soldiers service - suspended sentence, community service etc. The victim would feel vindicated and the soldier would still be kicked out. Or at the very least the judge could have explained what a conditional discharge means in terms of military service. But TBH I think he just should have had some balls and locked the guy up.

NiceTabard · 03/06/2013 22:52

Thing is none of that stuff means justice is "seen to be done" as none of that is in the papers and judging by the victim's reaction she doesn't know / doesn't see it as a punishment.

So basically the courts have handed it back to the army to deal with. That's a worrying way to do things IMO.

BasilBabyEater · 03/06/2013 22:24

I think it may be better than locking him up.

I hope the military do discharge him, he's a bloody disgrace.

LtEveDallas · 03/06/2013 22:18

He will have gone to Afghan because 1) He wasn't proved guilty until today so they couldn't stop him deploying and 2) As a Troop Sgt he will have a pivotal role that couldn't easily be replaced.

However, as soon as he comes back he will receive Admin Action, and a Conditional Discharge can be used by his CO to dismiss him for misconduct.

He won't be further punished by the Mil. But seeing as his discharge will mean the loss of his gratuity (approx £40K) and monthly immediate pension (approx £500/month) I think that's a pretty good result. He's only done 13 years so is pretty much a 'flier' that could have reached Warrant Rank or even commission, which would mean an awful lot more money.

I'd be pissed if he was one of mine - the magistrate is a fool. I would expect his Regt's Discipline Sgt had the paperwork to bin him ready for signature, and will tonight be cursing the justice system, but rest assured he won't get away with it Scott free. Hitting him in the pocket may not be as good as locking him up, but it's pretty painful.

BasilBabyEater · 03/06/2013 22:16

Well quite.

It totally sets a precedent that women can just be assaulted for rebuffing a man's sexual advances and that there won't be any consequences at all for the man.

It's really scarey. The pretence that women have the protection of the law when it comes to male violence, is getting thinner and thinner.

edam · 03/06/2013 22:09

Good grief, what a fuckwit that magistrate is. Makes you wonder about his behaviour towards women if he thinks this is in some way excusable. The fact the thug was a serving soldier makes it worse, surely, not better - this guy is meant to be trained to control himself and to do display good conduct that reflects well on his regiment.

AuntieStella · 03/06/2013 22:02

He will face administrative action on his return (which could mean dismissal). This is pretty standard, otherwise every squaddie who didn't fancy seeing their tour out would assault someone during R&R.

NiceTabard · 03/06/2013 21:50

No I don't think his army career is over as he has gone back to afghanistan.

MisForMumNotMaid · 03/06/2013 21:46

Does anyone know if the conditional discharge means his army career is over?

From the way the linked article is written its rather concerning that he's been in uniform on active operation since the attack.

I'm so sad that the women involved is concerned that her name is tainted by this. If I googled her as an employer and came across the article linked my impression would be she's strong with a stable family - only positive things.

BasilBabyEater · 03/06/2013 21:33

Presumably if he'd raped her, his record of good conduct would also have been his get out jail free card.

FFS, what does this tell women?

That we'd better sleep with any military man who wants us to, otherwise he's entitled to beat us up?

Jesus.

Unflip

1 2 3

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.