It was a "gross breach" of Army regulations for an SAS sniper to have a gun and ammunition in his accommodation, a court has heard.
Sergeant Danny Nightingale, 38, is accused of having a Glock 9mm pistol stored in his wardrobe and 338 rounds of ammunition stashed under his bed.
The haul was recovered in September 2011 when civilian police searched the father-of-two's three-bedroom house, which he shared with another member of the SAS.
The court martial in Bulford, Wiltshire, has previously heard the Army has strict policies governing the retention of weapons and ammunition.
Giving evidence, a special forces colleague of Sgt Nightingale said the rules applied to all service personnel, irrespective of their unit.
Prosecutor Timothy Cray asked the serviceman, who was known only as Soldier Y: "In your unit, was there any statement for exception or turning a blind eye to these orders as far as ammunition is concerned?"
Soldier Y replied: "We have no dispensation nor have we had any."
Mr Cray asked: "Given the nature of your unit, was there any special exemption in terms of members of the unit having firearms for their own use that had not been issued by the unit?"
Soldier Y replied: "None whatsoever."
Mr Cray asked the witness: "The allegations against Sgt Nightingale are that he had an unauthorised firearm in his bedroom of his single service substitute accommodation and 338 rounds of live ammunition.
"From a unit point of view, if that were true, how seriously would such a breach be regarded?"
Soldier Y replied: "It would be regarded as a gross breach bearing in mind the nature and quantity of the ammunition that was allegedly found at the defendant's house."
The court room had been cleared and the public and press were able to watch from an annexe, where they could hear Soldier Y's evidence but not see him.
Sgt Nightingale, of Crewe, Cheshire, whose regiment in court was listed as The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire and Border), has pleaded not guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article