Tweet
OMG what the hell are the army doing , we are a laughing stock , thankfully the judge showed sense on the face of it ,what a complete waste of time , money and the loss of a very experienced guy , no bloody wonder people dont want to join , when i served i was taught hit 1st hit hard and ask Qs later ,,if any needed asking , we are at WAR FFS 
.
Court martial judge questions prosecution of soldier
A special forces soldier is being prosecuted for punching a member of the Taliban during an ambush in Afghanistan.
The special forces soldier, whose identity is being kept secret, has now left the Army in disgust at his treatment
The corporal is being taken to a court martial accused of an offence already described as "minor" by a military judge - and despite the "victim" having no apparent interest in the trial.
Corporal X, whose identity is being kept secret because of his membership of the special forces unit, has now left the Army in disgust at his treatment, which came despite an umblemished record and glowing references from his superiors.
The case has raised concerns in the military that troops are being prosecuted needlessly to avoid any allegations of "cover ups".
It has been pursued despite a court martial judge expressing concern about whether deciding to "pursue" the soldier is a good use of the "public purse".
Senior military figures are increasingly worried at the financial burden of troops being prosecuted, both because of the legal costs and the loss of soldiers from the front line.
Special forces soldier faces war crimes probe
Jun 2011(FoxNews.com)[what's this]Cpl X was charged with assault last March and will have to wait until July for the full trial to take place.
The alleged attack occurred after a joint patrol of British special forces and Afghan troops was ambushed in the Sangin area of Helmand in March last year.
Two armed men on a motorcycle rode directly at the patrol and the driver, who had a pistol, was shot dead after he ignored repeated orders to stop.
The pillion passenger was captured unharmed and placed in the custody of a member of the Special Forces Support Group.
Moments later the prisoner tried to escape and was punched once by the corporal as he tried to restrain him.
The soldier relayed the entire incident to a member of the Royal Military Police and is alleged to have admitted striking the suspected insurgent to prevent him from escaping and endangering the lives of members of his patrol.
At the end of the interview, Cpl X was cautioned and sent home to Britain where he was arrested, cautioned again, interviewed and later charged with assault.
Afterwards he quit the Army, despite having had years of expensive training, with an outstanding letter of reference from his unit.
Even though Cpl X had left the army and the "victim", known only as Mr Wall had disappeared, the case was pursued, to the surprise of Judge Alistair McGrigor.
During preliminary proceedings last month, Judge McGrigor, an assistant judge advocate general, questioned whether a trial was in the best interest of the taxpayer given that any sentence passed would be minimal.
He demanded to know why the Service Prosecuting Authority, the military equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, had kept the case going.
Addressing Lt Col David Phillips of the Army Legal Service, the prosecuting officer, Judge McGrigor said: "We have a former Cpl X, now a civilian, who has a charge of battery against him in relation to an incident that took place a year ago against a Mr Wall, who appears to have little or no interest in the proceeding.
"Is this, Colonel, a matter that the public purse should be pursuing in such a robust way? I raise this because in the view of the effluxion of time, the fact that Cpl X is now a civilian and the fact that Mr Wall is not to be found well may mean that any sentence passed is going to be of a minimal nature."
Lt Col Phillips replied: "That may well be the case here but there is an overwhelming public interest in pursuing soldiers who, as asserted here — and it is an allegation to be proved in court — have allegedly abused their position to strike a detainee."
Judge McGrigor responded: "A few minutes earlier, another Afghan national was shot dead. It seems the counterpoint in this is that the allegation against Mr X is that he caused a single blow — if that is accepted — which caused a minimal injury. In the context of what was going on, it does seem minor."
Last night Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP for Newark, and former infantry commander, said: "This case is a waste of military time, legal time and taxpayers’ money.
"We have got to stop abusing our soldiers in this way because that is what this is — abuse."
.Court martial judge questions prosecution of soldier
A special forces soldier is being prosecuted for punching a member of the Taliban during an ambush in Afghanistan.
The special forces soldier, whose identity is being kept secret, has now left the Army in disgust at his treatment
The corporal is being taken to a court martial accused of an offence already described as "minor" by a military judge - and despite the "victim" having no apparent interest in the trial.
Corporal X, whose identity is being kept secret because of his membership of the special forces unit, has now left the Army in disgust at his treatment, which came despite an umblemished record and glowing references from his superiors.
The case has raised concerns in the military that troops are being prosecuted needlessly to avoid any allegations of "cover ups".
It has been pursued despite a court martial judge expressing concern about whether deciding to "pursue" the soldier is a good use of the "public purse".
Senior military figures are increasingly worried at the financial burden of troops being prosecuted, both because of the legal costs and the loss of soldiers from the front line.
Special forces soldier faces war crimes probe
Jun 2011(FoxNews.com)[what's this]Cpl X was charged with assault last March and will have to wait until July for the full trial to take place.
The alleged attack occurred after a joint patrol of British special forces and Afghan troops was ambushed in the Sangin area of Helmand in March last year.
Two armed men on a motorcycle rode directly at the patrol and the driver, who had a pistol, was shot dead after he ignored repeated orders to stop.
The pillion passenger was captured unharmed and placed in the custody of a member of the Special Forces Support Group.
Moments later the prisoner tried to escape and was punched once by the corporal as he tried to restrain him.
The soldier relayed the entire incident to a member of the Royal Military Police and is alleged to have admitted striking the suspected insurgent to prevent him from escaping and endangering the lives of members of his patrol.
At the end of the interview, Cpl X was cautioned and sent home to Britain where he was arrested, cautioned again, interviewed and later charged with assault.
Afterwards he quit the Army, despite having had years of expensive training, with an outstanding letter of reference from his unit.
Even though Cpl X had left the army and the "victim", known only as Mr Wall had disappeared, the case was pursued, to the surprise of Judge Alistair McGrigor.
During preliminary proceedings last month, Judge McGrigor, an assistant judge advocate general, questioned whether a trial was in the best interest of the taxpayer given that any sentence passed would be minimal.
He demanded to know why the Service Prosecuting Authority, the military equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, had kept the case going.
Addressing Lt Col David Phillips of the Army Legal Service, the prosecuting officer, Judge McGrigor said: "We have a former Cpl X, now a civilian, who has a charge of battery against him in relation to an incident that took place a year ago against a Mr Wall, who appears to have little or no interest in the proceeding.
"Is this, Colonel, a matter that the public purse should be pursuing in such a robust way? I raise this because in the view of the effluxion of time, the fact that Cpl X is now a civilian and the fact that Mr Wall is not to be found well may mean that any sentence passed is going to be of a minimal nature."
Lt Col Phillips replied: "That may well be the case here but there is an overwhelming public interest in pursuing soldiers who, as asserted here — and it is an allegation to be proved in court — have allegedly abused their position to strike a detainee."
Judge McGrigor responded: "A few minutes earlier, another Afghan national was shot dead. It seems the counterpoint in this is that the allegation against Mr X is that he caused a single blow — if that is accepted — which caused a minimal injury. In the context of what was going on, it does seem minor."
Last night Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP for Newark, and former infantry commander, said: "This case is a waste of military time, legal time and taxpayers’ money.
"We have got to stop abusing our soldiers in this way because that is what this is — abuse."
Comment