---

Fatal Shootings (Iraq)

Let me begin by echoing the Solicitor-General’s expressions of sympathy for the family of Sergeant Roberts, and indeed for that of Mr. Zaher, in this tragic series of events. I thank the Solicitor-General for early sight of his statement—all the more because the first indication I had that the statement would be made was in an e-mail timed at 1.14 this morning, which rather suggests that the Attorney-General and his Department were left a little in the dark by the Government’s business managers on how today’s business would be conducted. The Solicitor-General’s statement, and the CPS report that accompanied it, were extremely thorough, illuminating and helpful in explaining what happened. I am entirely satisfied that the Attorney-General has acted completely properly in this matter. In the light of that, I hope that the Solicitor-General will take in good part the points that I think need to be raised. Does the Solicitor-General agree that what emerges most clearly from the CPS report, after two lengthy investigations of the matter—one through Army Legal Services and the SIB between 2003 and 2004, and the second by the police and the CPS—is that the original conclusion and assessment by the first SIB report and the commanding officer was, in fact, entirely correct? This was an incident in which soldiers acted to protect a comrade, Sergeant Roberts, who was under attack from Mr. Zaher. The incident took place in difficult circumstances and with tragic consequences, but no one could possibly say that there was any imputation of criminality. In that context, it is perhaps a little unfortunate that as lawyers we must resort to the expression ““insufficient evidence to prosecute””. As the Solicitor-General may agree, on the facts given it is difficult to see that this was anything other than a tragic series of events initiated by Mr. Zaher’s behaviour. I am glad that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General have acknowledged concern about the length of time that this matter has taken. Part of it—a longer period—was during the time in which the Attorney-General was seized of the matter, but I accept that it was an investigation in difficult circumstances. I hope that the Solicitor-General can provide some reassurance that he is satisfied that the police investigation was conducted as expeditiously as possible. Does the Solicitor-General agree that what we should strive for in cases such as this is prompt and thorough investigation by the SIB, through the APA, when the specialist nature of its skills can properly reflect the extremely challenging environment in which soldiers are operating, in what in this instance was a combat zone during the initial stages of hostilities in Iraq? May we be reassured that the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General are satisfied that the new structures that they have established will work to enable the SIB and the APA to provide an efficient and effective service? The Solicitor-General may agree with me that it is clear that there were inconsistencies in the approach initially, which left the Army chain of command in considerable difficulty over what line to adopt. What we ought, and hope, to see in future is a fairly seamless process whereby such matters can be dealt with in the military sphere, and intervention by the Attorney-General and the police is very rarely needed. I realise that this may fall a little outside the Solicitor-General’s province, but it is pretty plain from the CPS report that the disquiet that has been expressed about the circumstances in which the troops found themselves at the time must remain in question. The use of tank crews in a semi-infantry role to carry out what amounted to a form of crowd control, at a time when they were engaged in intense hostilities—and had been so very recently—and with some equipment that was described in the CPS report as totally unsuitable for the circumstances in which they found themselves—we also know that body armour was deficient in the case of Sergeant Roberts—must give rise to anxieties. I very much hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to communicate those anxieties to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and that we may be able to hear more from them about that aspect of the matter in due course.