" SIR - Perhaps the most disturbing question raised by the sentence (report, November 18) passed on Sgt Danny Nightingale for possessing a gun given to him in Iraq, is that the proceedings were presided over by a civilian judge advocate rather than, as is historically the case, by a military president sitting with a judge advocate to advise on points of law.
This is not to impugn the integrity of the court's decision, nor its validity, but there is an unspoken implication that the special circumstances unique to military service and military justice may not have been given the due weight that a military president could bring to bear in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
Lt Col W L Pender (retd)
Salisbury, Wiltshire "
" SIR - David Cameron has expressed his unhappiness with the outcome of Sgt Nightingale's case. Politicians interfere increasingly in the options available to judges. The law obliges a judge to impose a minimum sentence of five years in prison for possession of a firearm unless "exceptional circumstances" exist.
Do not blame the judge, who clearly felt that he had to impose a prison sentence, even if he was satisfied exceptional circumstances existed. Rather blame the politicians who would subvert the generations-old discretion of Her Majesty's judges to impose common-sense sentences in cases like this.
Similarly, the Crown Prosecution Service seldom exercises discretion in deciding when to charge - the only test being whether a conviction is likely. It is difficult to imagine, in easier days, that Sgt Nightingale would even have been charged.
James Cartwright
Temple
London EC4 "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9699549/We-must-free-Sgt-Nightingale-from-such-an-unjust-sentence.html