A shameful injustice only a retrial can f ix

DAY Two of our campaign to secure a retrial for Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman, and the disturbing questions mount over his conviction for the ‘murder’ of a mortally wounded Taliban on the battlefield.

Let us be clear, once again, that nothing condones his decision to shoot the Afghan fanatic, who was armed with a Kalashnikov rifle and grenades.

His conduct – regardless of the fact he believed the Taliban was already dead – fell well below the exacting standards Britain rightly expects of its military.

But, as we argued yesterday, did a man who for 13 years risked his life defending his country, often in the most appalling environment – the Taliban had tortured one of his comrades to death, blown two others to pieces and hung the severed limbs of another from a tree – really deserve to be tried for murder and thrown in jail like a common criminal?

And, most crucially, was his court martial fair and in possession of all the facts? On Day One, we revealed how the military panel was never given evidence of operational failings by his commanders that meant his troop was scandalously isolated, under-manned and underresourced – all directly affecting his state of mind at the time of the shooting.

Indeed, one high-flying colonel was so disgusted that he was blocked from presenting evidence to the panel – which found Sgt Blackman guilty by a verdict of only 5-2 (insufficient to convict in a civilian court) and tellingly saluted the Marine as he was sent down – that he resigned in protest. Now i t emerges t hat a r eport commissioned by military chiefs into the circumstances of the 2011 killing is being shamefully suppressed – with only one heavily-redacted page due to be published. What do they have to hide? Do they fear that, if the full extent of the military’s failure to protect and equip J company was laid bare, it would be abundantly clear that Sgt Blackman’s conviction was unsafe and that, owing to the fact he was under terrible stress, his defence team should have argued for a manslaughter verdict?

Already, there has been an outpouring of support from MPs, ex-military generals such as Lord Dannatt and the public – which has pledged tens of thousands of pounds to a legal fighting fund. As Sgt Blackman’s wife, Claire, eloquently says: ‘The fact that he is now serving a life sentence for killing a dying Taliban insurgent is just wrong, this was war. Had the roles been reversed that man would have tortured my husband before killing him.’

With good reason, his campaign team’s view is that he has been ‘hung out to dry’ – a political scapegoat for the failings of Tony Blair’s catastrophic wars. No one should forget how casually Labour politicians sent young men off to fight with no understanding of what was happening on the ground – John Reid, the former Defence Secretary, even boasted that the Army might leave Afghanistan without a shot being fired.

And how outrageous it is that they continue to sabotage the Chilcot report into the Iraq War which, six years on, has still not been published.

Thus, Mr Blair jets round the world earning millions, and Lord Reid sits comfortably in the House of Lords, while a decorated soldier who was prepared to sacrifice his life to keep them safe l anguishes in j ail with rapists and murderers – denied justice.

Yes, Sergeant Blackman deserves to be punished. But there are so many disturbing questions about his murder conviction that it must be quashed so a new – and this time fair – trial for manslaughter can take place.