Charges dropped against 'Veteren', now he seeks damages

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by SJRM_RN, Feb 20, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. OK then he can be prosecuted under the armed forces act which replaced the act under which he was charged.
     
  2. I suppose he will be able to buy some more medals with the compo he gets.
    The law is an ass as usual. :?
     
  3. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    CPS made a [email protected] As to suing, I hope he wins his cases and is awarded 1p damages with no order as to costs so that he ends up seriiously out of pocket. Clearly the man is acomplete sh!t.
     
  4. One total c0ck up by the police and the CPS. What a bunch of twonks.This case could have drawn a line in the sand in respect to Walter Mitty types disrespecting our fallen comrades by wearing nothing short of stolen valour.

    Have a nice day

    IDOITDEEPER
     
  5. A sad man indeed
     
  6. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    An offence which was committed prior to AFA 06 was implemented (31 Oct 2009) will be prosecuted under the appropriate Service Discpline Act at the time. However as the Home Office/CPS have limited provision to prosecute under the AA 55, etc., I believe they should have brought charges under the Uniforms Act 1894...
     
  7. Top of the list for I am a celebrity get me out of here I reckon now how many have been caught pop them all on a desert island or jungle see how they get on. That would make good viewing!
     
  8. Mr Day added: “I am vindicated. I am now considering taking legal action against all those who muddied my name.â€


    His time would be better spent attempting to understand the disrespect he has shown the 'fallen' and their families
     
  9. That anyone else was responsible for muddying his name shows just what a twat he is, but not reframing the charges under the relevant Act shows the basest disrespect by the CPS, or whoever was responsible for the cock-up.
     
  10. Due to the the repeal of the Army Act 1955 the CPS and the police are now totally buggered! Unfortunately there is no provision under AFA 2006 or any other current Act to prosecute this type of behaviour. Barking innit!

    Have a nice day

    IDOITDEEPER
     
  11. I bet he hasn't stopped lying to his missus. "It's all part of my cover love; can't talk about it" :roll:
     
  12. Firstly, I am really surprised that the CPS could have made such a basic mistake. Thank goodness that the costs incurred are relatively low.

    Now, I see that Mr Day says: “I am vindicated. I am now considering taking legal action against all those who muddied my name.â€

    Words such as those make me shudder whenever I hear them, even though they are often spoken in the heat of the moment; the truth is, litigating when someone has "muddied (your) name" is a minefield. Like others before him, he wants his day in the High Court, getting redress, but will he get it? I don't think so.

    If he is thinking of a civil action, his Barrister will have to answer this question: "Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?"

    Sim -v- Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237

    Cases which do make it to the High Court invariably involve someone whose professional position could be undermined by the libel or slander and I do not see how Mr Day can claim that there have been tangible effects on his professional well-being or financial losses incurred, to be honest.

    There is no Legal Aid available for Defamation cases, which is why you will see people like Jeffrey Archer litigating, but, I hope, not Mr Day. To fund a High Court action in this instance would be very very expensive and I hope that Mr Day can see that such litigation would be misguided. As it is, his Legal Team will surely advise him of this.

    Simply my own humble opinion, by the way.
     
  13. At least we can take comfort in the fact that all his neighbours and those who know him will know what sad pathetic individual he is.
     
  14. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Part 5 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions, etc.) Order 2009 and the Armed Forces Regulations 2009 refer. Details contained in JSP 830 (Manual of Service Law) Chapter 6 Part 8 (Transitional Guidance) regarding jurisdiction of offences committed before 31 Oct 2009.

    However as the AFA 06 covers service personnel still subject to service discpline and some civilians, I still maintain that the Uniform Act 1894 should have used to charge the offender...
     
  15. How very predictable.

    Edited to avoid crayoning over a subject in current affairs.

    Can't see any mention of medals specifically in here Sgtpepperband can you?

    http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/conten...064485&ActiveTextDocId=1064485&filesize=10528

    Have a nice day

    IDOITDEEPER
     
  16. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    IDID: Drop this juvenile attempt at a bite, and keep to the topic in hand - it is boring and pointless...
     
  17. Juvenile attempt at a bite? SPB I have simply replied to your quote of my text within the context of the thread. If you do not wish me to reply to you then I suggest you do not quote me. Simples. Anyway back on thread.

    You suggest that Mr Day should have been prosecuted under the Uniforms Act 1894. Having inwardly digested the contents of the Act I would suggest that the chances of the CPS obtaining a successful conviction by prosecuting under this Act would be negligible really.

    The fact of the matter is that the police and CPS have in the past been reluctant to attempt any prosecution of the Walter Mitty type due to the absence of unambiguous legislation in regard to this matter. Would you not agree?

    Have a nice day

    IDOITDEEPER
     
  18. Lets stop the legal bickering.
    He should have been taken aroung the back of the pub and shown the error of his ways. His medals should then have been pushed up his arse.
     
  19. Just as a brief aside, I would suggest that a prosecution under the terms of the Uniforms Act 1894 might have been feasible, given that Mr Day insisted on wearing an SAS beret.
     

Share This Page