Does this case contravene 'equality before the law'?

[Teletropis]

It sounds to me that the judge was looking for a way to let someone off the hook due to the law's inadequacy in handling a bar brawl in which there were really no victims, only participants. The fact that he was in the military was just a convenient pretext. I'd like to think the judge is good enough at his job to find some other excuse to let the guy off the hook.

Is the guy who died not a victim?

[Fartsniffage]

It only contravenes equality before law if the judge does not suspend sentences for other people who have done good for their country/community.

That only really works if all judges do the same thing.

[Greed and Death]

It only contravenes equality before law if the judge does not suspend sentences for other people who have done good for their country/community.

That only really works if all judges do the same thing.

not certain if all, but most judges take into account a variety of factors do they not ?

[Zwar (Ancient)]

All judges take into account mitigating and aggravating factors when deciding on an appropriate sentence. Sometimes theres not much they can do, i.e sentence for murder is mandatory life sentence, but they can recommend a number of years to serve.

[Eofaerwic]

It seems odd to me that a soldier would be tried in a civilian court.

Why? It was a civilian crime. Soldiers don't get special trials unless they contravene military laws.

Like people have said, he was cleared of manslaughter and affray is a relativley minor crime. Sentencing policy in the UK works on the principle of considering the offender as well as the crime, so factors such as military service, community service, being an upstanding citizen etc... will come into play. I imagine part of it may also have been if the judge knew that he was going to be deployed soon then the judgement may have been made that he would do more to repay any debt to society and avoid reoffence by suspending the sentence and allowing him to be deployed than sentence him to what would probably be only a few months in jail (which would probably do more harm than good) or community service, which he wouldn't be able to do due to being deployed.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I think this whole case sounds cheesy.

[Pope Joan]

I don't agree with the principle behind the decision.

But I've gotta say: That guy had a hella smart lawyer.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

It sounds to me that the judge was looking for a way to let someone off the hook due to the law's inadequacy in handling a bar brawl in which there were really no victims, only participants. The fact that he was in the military was just a convenient pretext. I'd like to think the judge is good enough at his job to find some other excuse to let the guy off the hook.

Is the guy who died not a victim?

Not from what I read. Sounds like a bunch of stupid drunk people brawled and one accidentally died. If a skydiver dies, is he a victim?

[JuNii]

It seems odd to me that a soldier would be tried in a civilian court.

if it happened while off duty and at a civilian establishment and involved civilians...

I've seen Military personnel appear before traffic and other courts.

[Dyakovo]

It seems odd to me that a soldier would be tried in a civilian court.

Why? It was a civilian crime. Soldiers don't get special trials unless they contravene military laws.

Because that's not how it works (worked?) in the U.S.
In the U.S., at least while I was in the service, if you committed a crime off base the local police turn you over to the military police.
Mind you I see nothing wrong with a soldier being tried in civilian court for crimes committed off base, it just is different from what I'm used to.