Wife-beating soldier who knifed mum and threatened to kill partner spared jail because he is 'best gunner in regiment'

A SOLDIER who stabbed his mother in front of his terrified wife and children walked free from court on Friday.
Gunner Ceiron Hack, 22, threatened to kill his wife Brooke and his parents in a drunken rage in the family home at Netheravon.
When his mother Denise tried to shield Brooke, he grabbed a kitchen knife and plunged it into her hand, severing an artery.
But he was spared jail after Salisbury Crown Court heard that he was “probably the best gunner” in his regiment and due for promotion.
The court heard the attack followed a trivial row with his wife last July, in which Hack punched the TV, before leaving the house for “extra army duties”.
Scared because he had previously head-butted and punched her, Brooke called his parents, who travelled 300 miles to support her.
His father, Keith, went to find him at Tidworth Camp, but Hack came home alone at 2.10am slurring and ranting.
He threatened to kill his mother and his wife, who was holding their baby, then shoved his mother to the floor and grabbed the knife.
Terrified, she shut him in the kitchen, but he smashed the door, pushed her onto the sofa, and again threatened his wife, shouting “I’m f*****d, I have been trying to tell everyone for ages but no-one is listening to me,” and “When Dad gets back, I’m going to put this straight in his throat.”

Denise Hack shielded Brooke, telling her to run and call the police, and begged him: “Don’t hurt anyone else, hurt me.”
He then stabbed her, cutting nerves, tendons and arteries in her hand.
She cried out: “Oh my God, what have you done? You have stabbed me. God, Ceiron, what have you done? Help me!”

Ceiron Hack attacked his mother Denise, Salisbury Crown Court court heard
 
Hack told his wife to call an ambulance, before dragging his mother outside by the hair and locking the door, saying: “Tell Dad to hurry up so I can stab him in the throat.”
Police arrived to find him in the back garden where he threw down the knife, saying: “I stabbed my mum, I need help.”
Defending, Bob Scott said Hack had no excuse but was now full of remorse and hoped to rekindle his marriage.
He did not accept that he stabbed his mother, suggesting she had grabbed the blade.
Mr Scott described Hack as a “Jekyll and Hyde” — bad-tempered at home, especially when drunk — but “well thought of” at work.
He said: "He has been described by his commanding officer as ‘probably the best gunner in the regiment’.
“If he continues, no doubt he will be promoted.
“It is incredibly frustrating that he can be on one hand, such a good soldier, but on the other hand can succumb to the stormy nature of his personal relationship.”
Mr Scott said Hack had been dry for six months, except on one occasion when he had “got drunk and sliced his own cheek”.
A psychiatric report said there was no evidence of post traumatic stress disorder.
In a victim statement, Denise Hack said her life had been “turned upside down”.
She described having nightmares after the attack and said she was “devastated” by her son’s behaviour, which had had a “massive” financial, emotional and physical impact on her and her family.
Brooke Hack said it had "never felt so frightened" as she did during the attack.

Brooke Hack was scared of her husband because he had previously headbutted and punched her, the court was told
 
The judge, Susan Evans QC, said it was a shocking and terrifying incident, in which he had “terrorised” his wife.
She said Denise had acted “incredibly courageously throughout the ordeal” and praised her bravery in shielding Brooke and trying to reason with her son.
Hack, of Choulston Close, Netheravon, admitted making death threats, causing grievous bodily harm and damaging property.
He received a two-year sentence, suspended for two years, plus 96 hours’ unpaid work, and he must pay £1,270 compensation.
Judge Evans said she was “just persuaded” to suspend the sentence, despite a probation officer recommending an immediate jail term.
Summing-up, Judge Evans said the army said Hack “performed superbly in the field”, “had the potential to become a non-commissioned officer” was “a keen soldier, eager to fulfil your full potential” and “the most effective gunner on the gun line.”
Judge Evans also described Hack as a “valued and talented soldier”.
An immediate prison sentence or any more than 96 hours’ unpaid work would have triggered an automatic dismissal from the armed forces.


It means Hack, who had already been convicted by court martial for battering his wife, will not automatically be kicked out of the army.
He is barred from visiting his parents’ house for a year, and from contacting his wife, except to arrange child contact, indefinitely.

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/14220467.Wife_beating_soldier_who_knifed_mum_and_threatened_to_kill_partner_spared_jail_because_he_is__best_gunner_in_regiment_/


And you think he is likely to obey the rules of war when he is shown he can get away with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a load of nonsense, you did release he clearly has a drink problem and is trying to resolve it as stated, only once losing track in 6 months.
He was remorseful for what he had done.
Its not like he was sober and went and tried to kill her, he stabbed the hand drunk which could have killed the mother through the severing of the artery
Whilst I think his behavior was appealing, and condemn his actions completely, but it would have cost him his job.
The judge used discretion here, also agreeing he should have this on his record and condemn his actions, but he could have bright future and wants to work on his problem. He also pleaded guilty to the charges, which will lesson the sentence, of which he still was convicted and sentence though this being suspended.

He clearly has trust or insecurity issues in relationships, which he should seek help on.

To then make the most idiotic claim on the rules of engagement when his record is exemplary, is just about as daft as it gets

The guy obviously has mental health problems which SHOULD lead to help being provided...
His situation is NOT helpd by the constant lefty attacks on our brave fighting men. By those who would undermine their every effort.

fortunately this might be being brought to a halt....

Nobody, not even British soldiers, should be above the law

I supported the second Iraq war. It seemed to me in 2003, and still does, that the world has a duty to find ways to remove regimes that commit genocide and use chemical weapons to gas their ethnic minorities.
I would have reversed every opinion I held, however, if David Cameron had been in power and his Ministry of Defence had announced: “British soldiers will be free to torture in Iraq, in breach of the Geneva convention and common law. We will cover up. When we can hide their crimes no longer, we will not pursue justice but, instead, pursue lawyers, who make claims against us, and seek to drive them out of business.”
This is now the argument of the Cameron administration, an argument it can deliver from a position of strength. In a battle between the state and lawyers who try to hold it to account, the state has always had the advantage. It can destroy its opponents’ supply lines and starve them into submission.
We are now in a grimly comic country, where in one breath Cameron rightly denounces Vladimir Putin’s contempt for the rule of law. In the next, he proposes to exempt British troops from legal accountability.
He has promised to crack down on an “industry trying to profit from spurious claims” against UK military personnel. His defence secretary. Michael Fallon, says he is so enraged by “ambulance-chasing lawyers” that he wants to stop human rights law covering troops in action.




The impression given by government and most of the press is that the interests of justice must be forgotten because innocent British troops have been the victims of a scam run by greedy lawyers. They prefer to leave the implication that they are the true victims hanging in the air because the evidence against their lachrymose fable is close to overwhelming.
Baha Mousa was killed, not in the heat of battle, but at a British army base in Basra. The army’s own official inquiry found that he had been denied food and water. His swollen and bloodied face bore the evidence of the beatings he had received and the “stress positions”, as the military euphemistically calls them, his guards had locked him in.
Meanwhile, government itself, not some shyster lawyer or bleeding-heart judge, has set up an official inquiry into allegations of “historic abuse” in Iraq. Fears that the International Criminal Court would shame the country by ordering Britain to appear before it forced Whitehall to stop stalling and investigate the alleged mistreatment of 1,514 Iraqis, including 280 who died.
The MoD is no soft touch. Yet it has paid out £20m in 326 cases without admitting liability. After actions involving Leigh Day, the law firm Cameron devotes so much time to attacking, the government paid £100,000 to the family of Saeed Shabram, who drowned after being detained by British troops. The death of Ahmed Jabbar Kareem, who drowned in a river near Basra after an alledged beating by soldiers is till being investigated. And the army dismissed three soldiers in disgrace for the abuse of Iraqi captives up to and including driving a forklift truck with a prisoner tied to its prongs.
I am with Kipling when he condemns those who make “mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep”. I have said many times that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters will believe any lie told against this country, however outrageous, and go along with any enemy, however fascistic.
But we are not dealing with fantastical slanders, but with proved accusations of killing and torture, and hundreds of further allegations that, by the British government’s own admission, warrant either compensation or further investigation.
If you take on a ruthless government or corporation, or any collection of political or religious fanatics, you will find that they can distort all the time and expect to get away with it. But if you make one mistake they will seize on it and attempt to use it to destroy you.
Cameron proves my rule. He can divert attention from the gruesome evidence in front of our eyes because Leigh Day made one mistake. It failed to provide until a late stage evidence to the al-Sweady inquiry into the alleged misconduct of British troops after a battle north of Basra in 2004, which showed some of its clients were insurgents, not civilians.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is investigating. Leigh Day tells me it is confident that it will see off the case. But let’s suppose it cannot. Its lawyers will be struck off or disciplined for misconduct and justice will have been done. Cameron says he also wants to sue Leigh Day for the millions it claimed in costs from the inquiry. And if his government can make a case, there will again be a kind of justice in the lawyers repaying the money.
What is both alarming and symptomatic is that the MoD is using the excuse of the firm’s alleged misconduct to try in as far as it can to place British troops beyond the rule of law. It wants to impose a collective punishment on all firms and restrict their ability and the ability of all future victims of British troops to go to law.
I once thought it was always worth watching how politicians treated foreigners because it showed how they would treat the British if they believed they could get away with it. Now that sentence needs turning on its head.
The Conservatives are only doing to foreigners what they have done to the British. They have hacked away at rights for British citizens to receive legal aid for housing, employment and in many instances immigration and child and family disputes.
The government has weakened the ability of the British citizen to review judicially the actions of the bureaucracy and is proposing to abolish the Human Rights Act. It keeps saying it will give us a British bill of rights in its stead. But we have not seen the replacement and there has been none of the open and vigorous debate a new charter would need to make it worthwhile. We will just have to take what the Conservative party gives us, apparently. Given its record in office, that is unlikely to be much.
The Cameron government will be remembered for its willingness to deny access to justice, most particularly when justice might have resulted in the bureaucracy being fined or censured. The Conservatives are ensuring that Iraqis, Afghans and Syrians will find what the British already know: that our state has become a self-protection racket.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/23/british-soldiers-should-not-be-above-law#comment-67407391


I rarely agree with Nick Cohen, but on this he is spot on.

---

I have no time for wife beaters and I don't care if they are good at their job. He terrified his wife and his family in a crazed attack that is shocking by any standards.

But should he lose his job, after pleading guilty and wanting to reconcile, which is the point here. Would sending him to jail, be the tipping point, which could then destroy this man and any chance of a family life, with his child or getting back with his wife.
Completely condemn his actions, but what both of you fail to grasp is this could utterly destroy him, turning him completely violent permanently, when he clearly needs help

But to go off his record not to be in combat shows the true vile nature of the left

Exactly, the excuse that he is 'good at his job' is not on laughable, it's bloody immoral and shows utter contempt for the women he terrified and hurt badly.

Again sassy fails to see the possible consequences here and of also rehabilitation

He was convicted and was drunk, and plead guilty, so many things are taken into consideration, but hey the left are good at wanting to destroy family lives

A Soldier who has seen his mates shot, burned and hacked to death tends to ignore the Rules Of War.


Not best practice but fully understandable.

In Northern Ireland I saw a young soldier badly wounded by a sniper. He was lying in the gutter moaning and calling for his Mom! A female Irish woman kicked him the face and shouted "die you English bastard you'll never see your Mammy again"i clubbed her with my rifle butt. I wished I could have shot her.

His dad should've beaten the shit out of him.

I don't think that being drunk is much of a defence. In fact, it should carry a stiffer sentence really.

His experience in the army should be taken into account - ie, has he seen terrible things and did that affect him? If it was out of character to attack his own mother, there must be a good reason.

I'm not sure he'll be able to come back from this very well tbh.

yes he should lose his job.
yes he should go to jail.


Read that, what sort of man does that to his wife and mother? No man does, not one worth the name.
he is not fit for human society undoubable war has broken him but like the vicious dog he has no place, if he were a dog he'd be put down.

Unlike Sassy I never supported the iraq invasion because Our leaders are no better than Saddam, do they give a Shit about their people? no. do they make murderous terrorists? yes and then they protect them from jusitice because they want to promote them instead..  because despite their propoganda they are just they same.

I think Sassy was quoting someone else. That's the trouble with not using the quote box.

nicko wrote:A Soldier who has seen his mates shot, burned and hacked to death tends to ignore the Rules Of War.


Not best practice but fully understandable.

In Northern Ireland I saw a young soldier badly wounded by a sniper.  He was lying in the gutter moaning and calling for his Mom!   A female Irish woman kicked him the face and shouted "die you English bastard you'll never see your Mammy again"i clubbed her with my rifle butt. I wished I could have shot her.

What a bitch.

veya_victaous wrote:yes he should lose his job.
yes he should go to jail.


Read that, what sort of man does that to his wife and mother? No man does, not one worth the name.
he is not fit for human society undoubable war has broken him but like the vicious dog he has no place, if he were a dog he'd be put down.

Unlike Sassy I never supported the iraq invasion because Our leaders are no better than Saddam, do they give a Shit about their people? no. do they make murderous terrorists? yes and then they protect them from jusitice because they want to promote them instead..  because despite their propoganda they are just they same.

I marched against the Iraq invasion Veya, the words were the words of Nick Cohen who wrote the article.  Utterly agree with him solidiers should not be above the law, which was the point of the article, most definitely don't agree with the bit about Iraq, sorry, should have made that clearer.

ahh
ok then

you know if you highlight the text and press the speech bubble button it will put it in the quote box, you can add an author or leave it blank.

veya_victaous wrote:ahh
ok then

you know if you highlight the text and press the speech bubble button it will put it in the quote box, you can add an author or leave it blank.

Ah, didn't know that, thanks

I wish people would do that tbh. I don't always know if it's Sassy or Didge speaking, or if they're quoting someone else.