I don't agree with their Lordships decision to make him known to the rabid zealots out there though. His family may now be at risk. Still the Army wants it's pound of flesh,you can't besmirch the good name of the British Army and expect to get any mercy.
Right with mitigation reducing the sentence. What is wrong is naming him. This will put his family (including children?) and possibly those who live around them in danger. I was surprised that they decided that he could be named given that there is a trial in progress over the murder of a soldier.
Grey Goo - Besmirched the name of the Royal Navy as the Royal Marines are part of the senior service not the Army.
It had to be done I suppose. But I do sympathise with him as when the state trains someone to kill people, and something goes wrong in a stressful environment, it's not purely the soldier thats guilty.
This sergeant was the leader his patrol and for reasons known only to him decided to end that wounded victim's life. He knew exactly what he was doing and even mentioned to his men, on the film recorded, that he had "breached the rules of the Geneva Convention so keep quiet about it"
This act in my estimation was just plain murder and he has received an appropriate sentence that reflects that. He now has plenty of time to think about his cowardly actions and the effect it could have on the other members of his squad. TC.
How or why did this incident come to light in the first place as it does not portray a good image. I am surprised that it was not "hushed up" way back down the line or was it to set an example of some kind for whatever reason.
Pure conjecture on my part I hasten to add.
The man is guilty of murder and a serious breach of the Geneva Convention. The sentence of the court is, in my view, correct. I do agree that they should have given more thought to the welfare of his family before naming him though.