Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 16 February 2006. It occurred during Parliamentary proceeding on Army: Advice of Attorney-General.
Army: Advice of Attorney-General
My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord and am grateful to him for giving way. We do not dispute the noble and learned Lord’s interpretation of the case of R v Boyd. That case referred to a situation where proceedings were initiated. The case of Trooper Williams is quite different. In the course of a proceeding that was already initiated, the noble and learned Lord gave advice in his supervisory role, or decided—I think ““decided”” was the word that he had used in an earlier statement of what happened—that that case should be transferred from the military to the civilian jurisdiction. That is an entirely different situation.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 678 c1296
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal investigation Detainees Armed forces Attorney General Courts martial Evidence Jurisdiction Homicide Iraq Inhuman treatment Powers Prosecutions Peacekeeping operations Military police Military law Standards Trials Army Prosecuting Authority High Court Williams, Kevin Evans, Scott
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:59:25 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302265
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302265
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_302265