The case of Army Sergeant Nightingale, which has received wide coverage in the media over the past week, is the latest example, and a particularly stark one, of Britain's draconian firearms laws. Sentenced to 18 months detention by a Court Martial earlier this month for possession of a pistol, his wife has now written to the Prime Minister David Cameron appealing to him to intervene and direct her husband's release.
Sgt Nightingale had been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, and, as a qualified SAS sniper, there can be no doubt that he is familiar with a wide range of firearms, and has shown himself to be responsible and competent in their use and handling. However, following the arrest of his fellow serviceman with whom he shared Army quarters, a search was conducted of their accommodation. In the course of that search, a Glock pistol was discovered amongst Sgt Nightingale's belongings. It was accepted that he had intended to have the pistol deactivated and mounted to present it as a souvenir to his squadron, and that there were several very good reasons why he had not got around to doing so prior to its discovery by civilian Police.
In principle, the offence of possessing a pistol, which is classified as a prohibited firearm, carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. However, the courts are empowered by law to impose a shorter sentence or even no custodial sentence at all in cases involving "exceptional circumstances". Sgt Nightingale's barrister had argued for a suspended sentence.
Through his military record, Sgt Nightingale has not only demonstrated great courage, and a far greater sense of duty to his country than most, but also that he was prepared if necessary to pay the ultimate price for his country, namely his life. Indeed two of his comrades did just that and he returned to Britain with their bodies to see them laid to rest. Subsequently, whilst taking part in an ultra-marathon event for charity to raise funds for wounded servicemen and women, Sgt Nightingale collapsed and suffered a serious brain injury, which has had a lasting impact on his memory.
In the circumstances, it is difficult to think of a more compelling case to show leniency and to find exceptional circumstances so as not to impose an immediate term of imprisonment. One might imagine the general public would agree that a suspended sentence would be a fair and proportionate penalty for Sgt Nightingale, given his loyal service to the country and the lack of any criminal intent. Surely, it would be far better to allow him to continue serving his country than to spend our taxes on incarcerating him?
Mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearms offences were introduced in a vain attempt to stem the tide of violent gun crime in Britain. The sentence imposed here highlights once again the inherent risk of injustice in adopting a one size fits all approach.
Sgt Nightingale's case will be debated in Parliament on Tuesday. Further developments will be watched with interest by our firearms law specialist, Laura Saunsbury.
