---

Iraq: Fatal Shootings of Sergeant Steven Roberts and Zaher Zaher

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for coming to the House with this important Statement. We on these Benches are relieved to know that these soldiers will not be facing charges. But we must not forget that a British soldier died in tragic circumstances, and our thoughts and deep sympathy go out to his wife and family. While Sergeant Roberts might not have survived if he had been wearing body armour, his death highlights the lamentable betrayal of our Armed Forces in failing to provide them with sufficient quantities of essential equipment. We should also bear in mind that an Iraqi died in this incident. He, too, had family, and our sympathy goes to them. This whole sorry saga has resulted in damaging consequences for the Armed Forces and their morale and has had constitutional ramifications. However, this is not the time for further debate about the basis for the Attorney-General’s powers. We will return to this issue when the Armed Forces Bill reaches this House. No one in the House excuses criminal acts. Soldiers guilty of misconduct under arms must not be immune from justice. But if justice is to be done, it must be administered to the highest standard and without delay. It is disgraceful that the soldiers of the Royal Tank Regiment have waited more than three years to have their names cleared. These soldiers have been badly let down by authorities responsible for conducting these investigations, both military and civil. For 18 months this case sat with the military jurisdiction. For 18 months it sat with the Crown Prosecution Service. What on earth was happening during this time? What assessment was made of the probability of gathering any reliable evidence from a war zone and the quality of some of that evidence being affected by the passage of time? Will the noble and learned Lord indicate why the CPS, for which he is statutorily responsible, took such a long time to reach the same conclusions as were originally advanced by the chain of command, namely that the soldiers were acting in genuine self-defence? The noble and learned Lord has had the opportunity to examine all the papers in each of the military and civilian stages and has therefore always been in a position to know and to assess how this cumulative disaster has built up. Will he therefore tell the House if he regards any one of these contributory delays as being avoidable? If he does regard any of them as being unacceptable, what action will he take? In debates in this House, and in correspondence with several noble Lords, the noble and learned Lord has placed great reliance on his powers of superintendence. Will he use those powers to reduce these unacceptable delays? In correspondence with the former Secretary of State for Defence, the noble and learned Lord expressed concern at the quality of military investigations into a number of incidents. Clearly neither the service police nor the prosecuting authorities were sufficiently funded to perform the duties they were expected to undertake. The noble and learned Lord raised his concerns as long ago as 2004. Given the superintendence powers, can the noble and learned Lord reassure the House that the Royal Military Police are now fully competent to handle investigations in an operational theatre and really are properly funded? If this is the case, does he agree that this will negate the need to transfer any further cases to the civilian jurisdiction? Finally, the Attorney-General indicated that one of his reasons for transferring the investigation out of the military jurisdiction was due to the alleged interference from the chain of command. I am therefore delighted that the Statement makes it clear that the chain of command acted lawfully and the integrity of the officers involved is not in doubt.