Proceeding contribution from Julian Brazier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the explanatory notes. As the clause is quite complicated, let me give him the wording from the Government's own explanatory notes:"““a service policeman who considers that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with a Schedule 2 offence (i.e. the most serious offences) must refer the case directly to the DSP.””" He is not allowed to go to the CO first. The word ““directly”” could not be clearer in that context. It cuts the CO right out of the loop. The case to which I referred was very much a vexatious case. The court martial dismissed it very quickly, but during the delay that took place, which would not have happened if the CO had had their way, the man’s marriage fell apart and his life fell apart.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 446 c1258
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Children Discipline Crime Armed forces Age Deployment Aircraft Courts martial Desertion Certification Custodial treatment Defence equipment Nuisance Prosecutions Military police Officers Sentencing
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-07-22 08:47:29 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325749
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325749
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325749