Sergeant Nightingale

Debate between Oliver Heald and Julian Lewis

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

I was describing what he said in an interview. Of course, it is true—he made this clear and it was not disputed, as far as I am aware—that the property was moved from secure military circumstances to his home and that he was aware of that.

On Sergeant Nightingale’s state of health, it is right that in October 2009 he was running a jungle marathon and suffered a brain injury. That was serious and it is good that he was able to make a recovery and was declared fit for duty. The court martial set out the key facts, which it took into account in sentencing. That is a public document and is on the judiciary website www.judiciary.gov.uk. I suggest that people read the whole of the court’s judgment. The judge advocate took into account the

“very great service over the years”,

and accepted a lot of what was said about the weapon and ammunition being kept in the mess and then moved to the home in January 2011, the point that my hon. Friend just made.

The reasons for sentence refer to the potential for very great harm when military weapons, especially combined with suitable ammunition, are kept in insecure accommodation. The court considered that he

“knew full well…that such items were never to be held insecurely at your home”.

The reasons for sentence are set out. It is important to bear in mind that with a prohibited firearm, which this was, Parliament has said that there is a minimum term of five years’ imprisonment unless there are “exceptional circumstances”. The court found that there were exceptional circumstances and imposed the lesser sentence.

We have an independent system of prosecution and trial, both for civilians and for members of the armed forces. The decision to prosecute was taken by the Service Prosecuting Authority. In deciding whether to prosecute, the SPA considers first whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction—clearly there was in this case, because there were full admissions and a plea of guilty followed—and secondly whether it is in the public interest and the service interest for that to happen.

Parliament has decided that this offence is so serious that a minimum term of five years must be imposed, except in exceptional circumstances. The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that the public interest will favour a prosecution. That is what the code for prosecutors states. It is difficult to see how the prosecutor could ignore this strong message, sent by Parliament, underlining the seriousness of the offence.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Did the police not decide that they did not wish to see a prosecution because no criminal intent was involved? Why should the military authorities take a different view?

[The Solicitor-General]

There is a protocol that decides where these cases are tried. The advantage from the serviceman’s point of view of being dealt with by court martial is that it often does not result in loss of rank or dismissal. In this case, the court martial said it hoped it would be possible, first, for the sergeant to keep his rank, and, secondly, that he would not be dismissed from the service. Had it wished, it could have recommended the loss of rank and service, but it did not. That was the decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) made a point about the role of the Attorney-General. In the case he referred to, it is true that the court said that if a judge was unhappy with a prosecution and felt it was not necessarily in the public interest, the judge could refer it and say, “Look, you should discuss this with the Attorney-General.” But that is at the beginning of the case, before a conviction. In a case such as this, where there has been a conviction and the court has moved to sentence, the only way of challenging the decision is for the person concerned to appeal. Under this system, the sentence in the court martial is made not just by the judge advocate but by the five serving officers on the board. They all have an equal vote. It is worth making the point that there was Army representation and that two of the five were warrant officers.