Former Regiment commanding officer Edward Lamb said yesterday he used the “full brunt of the law” to discipline a soldier who assaulted another soldier in Grenada in 2005.The private was given 56 days in military prison after an incident described by a lawyer in Supreme Court this week as an attempted rape at knifepoint.But Lieutenant Colonel Lamb told The Royal Gazette the evidence before him at the time did not suggest attempted rape.He found the perpetrator guilty of assault and “conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline” and gave the maximum sentence available under the Defence Act: 28 days imprisonment for each charge.The assault publicly described by Lt Col Lamb at the time as a “minor infraction” happened when the Regiment was deployed on post-hurricane relief in March 2005.The former CO said yesterday: “There were prevailing circumstances that had a direct bearing on how we could, and did, handle the matter, including it being deemed to be a Bermuda Regiment matter, despite our operating within a foreign jurisdiction.“After consulting with various authorities in Grenada, including a very senior police officer, about the circumstances of the case, it was determined that we would handle the matter internally. Had the actual circumstances been of a more grave matter, we would have certainly taken another course of action.”Lawyer Eugene Johnston, representing campaign group Bermudians Against the Draft (BAD), quizzed current commanding officer (CO) Lieutenant Colonel Brian Gonsalves about the incident during a civil hearing this week on the constitutionality of conscription.The CO raised the assault when asked by Mr Johnston about an investigation into “alleged abuses of a sexual nature in the Regiment”.“What were you investigating?” asked the lawyer. Lt Col Gonsalves said: “There was an incident back in 2005 when we went to Grenada.”Mr Johnston said: “That’s the knife to the neck, the attempted rape?” The CO replied: “Yes, I believe it was.”He added: “We did the investigation, the person was found guilty of doing the act.”But Lt Col Lamb said yesterday: “The evidence before me at that time did not suggest an attempted rape, nor was that the charge the assailant faced.“The characterisation of the incident as an attempted rape six years later is therefore not consistent with the incident as described by the complainant at that time.”He added: “I can recall carefully considering the evidence presented to me in this matter and I concluded that although there were mitigating factors for both parties in this case including discrepancies in the versions of what actually happened I found one soldier guilty of two offences; one being assault on another soldier.“ As far as the second charge goes, the soldier was charged with ‘conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline’, which emanated from his not being truthful in giving his evidence.”The former CO, who is now Commissioner of Corrections, said: “As a father of two sons myself, not for one moment would I minimise any incident involving an assault by one man on another man, and I certainly would not compromise my role as the then-appointed leader of hundreds of men.“As the commanding officer is governed by the powers afforded him by the Defence Act 1965, I utilised the full brunt of the law at my disposal, which is a maximum of 28 days imprisonment for each charge.“Consequently, a total of 56 days’ incarceration was awarded the offender. Upon our return to Bermuda, we made sure that the paths of these two soldiers did not cross.”He said out of “an abundance of caution” he discharged the victim from the Regiment to ensure there was no contact between the two men while on military duty.BAD founder Larry Marshall Sr said last night: “That’s a cop-out. There is no way he could not have known the severity of the situation.“From what I have been told by the victim, he sustained cuts to his hands and forearms during this vicious assault. How was it that for a ‘minor incident’ one man got the full sentence and the other was discharged?”