---

Armed Forces Bill

I believe that I can be helpful on this amendment. The noble and gallant Lord’s Amendment No. 19 would revise the clause using virtually the same words, but giving it a different structure. In particular, the words, "““in concert with at least one other person subject to service law””, " would appear twice—once in relation to action with the intention of overthrowing or resisting authority, and once in relation to disobeying authority. Subsection (2) currently uses those words once in relation to both. No drafting style will please everyone. We have tried to ensure consistency in style throughout the Bill. I have some sympathy with the noble and gallant Lord’s point of view. There is a problem with his redraft, however. I am not sure whether this is the noble and gallant Lord’s intention, but his amendment would change the effect of the clause. I will do my best to explain why. At present, the clause creates two offences. One, in subsection (1), is in essence ““agreeing”” to act. The other, in subsection (2), is in essence ““acting””. We think it more appropriate for there to be two offences, because ““agreeing to act”” and ““acting”” are really quite different. That also means that the prosecution must decide at the outset which offence it believes the defendant has committed and charge him with that offence. It must nail its colours to the mast, so to speak. The charge would either be acting, "““with the intention of overthrowing or resisting authority””," or agreeing, "““with at least one other … to overthrow or resist authority””." Amendment No. 19 would alter that by making all forms of mutiny a single offence. So the charge could be, ““acting with the intention of overthrowing or resisting authority or agreeing with one other person to overthrow or resist authority””. I am sure that noble Lords will see the distinction. If the accused were convicted on a charge that was drawn in that way, no one would know whether the court thought that he had agreed to act mutinously or that he had actually done so. In such a serious matter, we think it better that the charge should make it absolutely clear what the accused is alleged to have done. Keeping the offences separate, as we have in the Bill, achieves this. I will, however, look in this one instance at whether we can go some way towards meeting the noble and gallant Lord’s point about the drafting. I trust that, in the circumstances, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.