---

Iraq: Fatal Shootings of Sergeant Steven Roberts and Zaher Zaher

My Lords, I am aware of the noble Earl’s views on whether he would have confidence because he has expressed them on other occasions. I completely disagree with him, as he knows. We discussed this at some length during a previous debate on this subject. If anything, this demonstrates that there needs to be, and there will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, a fair and independent investigation that will reach a conclusion. British soldiers and British service men and women should and can expect, and will receive, a just consideration of their cases by those who have responsibility. They can rely on that. I will comment on the noble Earl’s remark about questionable legality. As he would anticipate, I absolutely disagree with him on that, but this is not the occasion for further debate on that subject. The autopsy on Mr Zaher took place during the investigations by the Metropolitan Police at least two years after the event, although I do not have the precise date in front of me. That meant that the autopsy could not be as it would have been had it taken place immediately afterwards, for reasons that I could go into if necessary. I have absolutely no view, nor could I have any view, about Mr Zaher’s mental state. A road block was taking place; I cannot say what his motives were, and it is not necessary for the purpose of my Statement. I disagree with the way that the noble Earl put his question about determination of the status of Mr Zaher. It was not so much that it took the SIB and the chain of command a year to determine his status, but that there was a debate about whether a full investigation was needed. That took quite a time to determine. I am sure that there should have been a full investigation, because that is the way we can have confidence that things have been properly investigated and looked at. I have made other comments in relation to that. Regarding the soldier, he has every right to use reasonable force in self-defence, whoever is the perceived attacker, civilian or not. That is not the issue. But the Geneva Convention provides that guidance, as, indeed, do the rules of engagement. If it is not clear that someone is a combatant, they should be treated as a civilian—use force in self-defence, but go no further than that.