Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Borrie (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.


Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, I do not think that I can give an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. If he is talking about members of the court martial, I have no doubt that those who are concerned with appointments will ensure that the most experienced people will sit on the court dealing with the more serious charges as opposed to the less serious offences, if I have understood the noble Lord correctly. I am afraid that I shall have to leave it to my noble friend to reply more fully. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, referred to the article in the Daily Telegraph on Monday by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. It was excellent that the Daily Telegraph should give him that opportunity because it was one of the papers most critical of the case of the three guardsmen, which has been referred to by many noble Lords. I am glad that the Attorney-General had the opportunity in the Daily Telegraph to specify that, although the court martial of the three guardsmen charged with manslaughter had resulted in an acquittal, the military prosecutor, two senior civilian Queen’s Counsel and the Judge Advocate General in the case all took the view that there was—I deliberately use the Attorney-General’s phrase—““credible evidence”” to justify the prosecution. To add my own words, I fear that too many people have asserted, because there was an acquittal, that there could not have been adequate evidence to start with, which I think was quite wrong. I believe that there has been very justifiable criticism of the delays in that and other cases. The maxim of Magna Carta that ““justice delayed is justice denied”” applies across the board to the service system as well as to the civilian system. But of course I also wish to follow my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in emphasising—I do not think that anyone in this House would disagree—that no soldier is above the law. I accept the Attorney-General’s reasoning for saying that, given the credible evidence point, the weight of Queen’s Counsel and the military authorities involved, the prosecution was fully justified.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
683 c274 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Discipline Appeals Administration of justice Armed forces Army Courts martial Civilians Air force Desertion Jurisdiction Military police Navy Prerogative of mercy Sentencing Standards Trials World War I Service Civilian Court
Legislation
Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk