Charges dropped against 'Veteren', now he seeks damages

[SJRM_RN]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7034300.ece

 

[slim]

OK then he can be prosecuted under the armed forces act which replaced the act under which he was charged.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

I suppose he will be able to buy some more medals with the compo he gets.
The law is an ass as usual. :?

 

[Seaweed]

CPS made a b@lls. 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.

 

[IDOITDEEPER]

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

 

[Doof]

A sad man indeed

 

[sgtpepperband]

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...

 

[Backpacker1uk]

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!

 

[21_Man]

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

 

[asst_dep_to_dep_asst]

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.

 

[IDOITDEEPER]

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.

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

 

[JonnoJonno]

I bet he hasn't stopped lying to his missus. "It's all part of my cover love; can't talk about it" :roll:

 

[soleil]

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.

 

[finknottle]

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.

 

[sgtpepperband]

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.

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!

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...