Ex-Soldier Jail Term Appeal Over Sas Ambush Inquest

[Axe]

1 hour ago, Organgrinder said:

If anyone breaks the law,  no matter what their job or their position in society,  they should stand in a court of law for it.

What's the point of having laws otherwise ?

Yes he broke the contempt of court law.   However, a former member of the SAS should not be forced to attend a court regarding an inquest into the deaths of IRA  terrorists which happened while the SAS members were serving our country.  

[Prettytom]

26 minutes ago, Axe said:

Yes he broke the contempt of court law.   However, a former member of the SAS should not be forced to attend a court regarding an inquest into the deaths of IRA  terrorists which happened while the SAS members were serving our country.  

He could attend the court and have his identity protected.

[Resident]

9 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

He could attend the court and have his identity protected.

He requested to submit a written statement as he was unable to attend court on VERIFIED medical grounds. 

Carmichael ignore those grounds and refused the request. When the soldier refused to attend she issued the supeona, again challenged on medical grounds

The soldier was jailed because Carmichael's ego. 

[Prettytom]

18 minutes ago, Resident said:

He requested to submit a written statement as he was unable to attend court on VERIFIED medical grounds. 

Carmichael ignore those grounds and refused the request. When the soldier refused to attend she issued the supeona, again challenged on medical grounds

The soldier was jailed because Carmichael's ego. 

If he’s asked to attend court, he needs to do so. Unless he produces acceptable evidence that he is not able to do so.

 

That doesn’t seem to have happened.

[Resident]

2 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

If he’s asked to attend court, he needs to do so. Unless he produces acceptable evidence that he is not able to do so.

 

That doesn’t seem to have happened.

He provided medical evidence. Carmichael chose to ignore it. 

[Prettytom]

2 minutes ago, Resident said:

He provided medical evidence. Carmichael chose to ignore it. 

Neither you, nor I know the detail of that evidence, or the reasons for its rejection.

[gaz678]

15 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

An ex-soldier "involved in planning" an SAS ambush in which three IRA men died is appealing against a jail sentence imposed earlier this week.

The ex-serviceman was cited to give his account of the June 1991 incident in Coagh, County Tyrone, to an inquest in Northern Ireland.

 

However, he refused, leading to a judge in Edinburgh imposing a six-month jail term on him for contempt of court.

Three men, Peter Ryan, Tony Doris and Lawrence McNally, died in the ambush.

 

Earlier this year, a judge at Scotland's Court of Session wrote of how the former serviceman, who can only be identified as 'Soldier F', was "involved in planning the operation".

Judge Lady Carmichael also wrote that there was "no dispute" that he was "one of the soldiers on the ground who opened fire".

 

The men who died were intercepted on 3 June 1991 by SAS soldiers as they drove in a stolen car. The special forces detachment suspected the IRA members were going to murder a member of the security forces.

All three were shot dead in a hail of gunfire.

Your thoughts? 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68459707.amp

He was acting on orders doing his job and a good job by sound of it 👏 👍 👌 

[crookesey]

This is the problem with being one of the good guys. The IRA bomb and murder the innocent, whilst he good guys must obey the rules, but in reality shouldn’t get caught whilst breaking them.

[peak4]

1 hour ago, Resident said:

He provided medical evidence. Carmichael chose to ignore it. 

I think you need to go back to the start and re-evaluate your understanding of the proceedings; I think i've got this about right, though I'm no lawyer, armchair or otherwise.
The BBC report does give some explanation,

The presiding coroner was  Mr Justice Humphreys, who would likely be the one to call witnesses originally

Inquest into British Army killing of three IRA men in Coagh opens

 

Former soldier must give evidence at inquests into deaths of IRA men in SAS ambush, judge rules

Madam Justice McBride rejected the British Army veteran’s bid to have a subpoena for him to attend remotely set aside on medical grounds.

He has provided a written statement setting out his involvement in planning the operation in Coagh and the role played as one of those who discharged their weapons on the day.

Earlier this year the coroner ruled that he should give oral evidence because of his importance as a witness who can deal with issues central to the inquest.

Amid concerns about Soldier F’s health, it was decided that he could appear by video-link from his home outside Northern Ireland and be screened as part of a series of special measures.

A subpoena was issued for him to attend remotely on Monday.

Bobbie-Leigh Herdman, for the Coroners Service, argued that none of the other military witnesses could deal with issues about the prior planning and how soldiers were positioned on the ground at Coagh.

“That really sets him apart and it’s one of the reasons his evidence was deemed important enough to require his attendance,” she said.

Madam Justice McBride backed the assessment that Soldier F’s evidence is important in determining whether the use of lethal force was justified.

Rejecting the application, she held that sufficient mitigating measures were in place to ensure he suffered no oppression.

“Having regard to the public interest and relevance, I consider that the scales weigh heavily in favour of Soldier F attending and giving oral evidence,” Madam Justice McBride confirmed.

“Accordingly, I refuse to set aside the subpoena.”

 

From the notes I originally linked

OPINION OF LADY CARMICHAEL In the petition THE PRESIDING CORONER OF NORTHERN IRELAND
Further procedure
[37] Parties agreed in the course of the hearing that I should deliver my decision on the respondent’s preliminary pleas, and on the relevancy of those parts of the respondent’s answers to which I have just referred, and that I should not at this stage move directly to considering whether to make a finding of contempt.
[38] Parties will now have a short period on which to reflect in the light of this decision, in particular on the question of the scope of further inquiry, what evidence if any will be led, and in what form, and how the hearing may be conducted.

 

So Soldier F's written evidence wasn't ignored, neither were medical reports.
Sufficient mitigations were (arguably) in place, including a screened remote video
No he's not in jail

A big question for me is why UK governments of all colours fail to provide adequate mental health support for our troops etc.

The same goes for the armed services lack of support; It shouldn't be left up to charities.
These veterans, and serving staff, will have to live with their actions for the rest of their lives; they were  carrying out the indirect instructions of our politicians, and they should be fully supported, along with their families.
(assuming they were acting within their terms of reference, orders, and rules of engagement)

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Prettytom said:

He could attend the court and have his identity protected.

That's correct and anyone who's worried about standing in a court should be wise enough not to break the law and save the problem from arising.

that ensures that everyone knows they are not above the law.