Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, an doctor and an officer in the Royal Air Force, has been sentenced to eight months in jail for refusing orders to go to Iraq.
A panel of five officers convicted Kendall-Smith of 'calculated and deliberate disobedience' of orders to train, prepare and deploy to Iraq last year.
Judge Jack Bayliss wrote that 'Obedience to orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Refusal to obey orders means that force is not a disciplined force but a rabble,' he said.
'Those who wear the queen's uniform cannot pick and choose the orders they follow.'
Philip Sapsford, who served as Kendall-Smith's attorney, described him as a 'man of great moral courage' who made his decision based on principles.
Judge Bayliss also criticized Kendall-Smith for not resigning if he disagreed with the war in Iraq.
'If they disagree with the moral position of the government, the recourse of an officer in a volunteer service is to do the honorable thing and to request to resign and to give his reasons,' he said. 'You didn't ask to resign. You continued to draw your not-inconsiderable salary.'
Kendall-Smith testified on his own behalf at trial. On the stand, he compared the United States to Nazi Germany and accused the prosecutors of being complicit in what he called the 'crimes' going on in Iraq.
The judge was not impressed with Kendall-Smith's defense. 'You have in the view of this court sought to make a martyr of yourself,' he said. 'You have shown a degree of arrogance which is amazing.'
Because he is an officer, Kendall-Smith must serve his sentence in a civilian jail. He will also be fined 20,000 pounds to pay for his court costs.
This was the first trial in Great Britain which addressed the legality of the war in Iraq. Before the trial began, however, Judge Bayliss ruled that the question of the war's legality was irrelevant and that British troops had a right to be in Iraq based on resolutions passed by the United Nations in 2005.
Lawyers for Kendall-Smith vowed to appeal the verdict. 'He feels that his actions were totally justified and he would not, if placed in the same circumstances, seek to do anything differently,' explained defense lawyer Justin Hugheston-Roberts.
