Proceeding contribution from Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 24 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
I am not a lawyer but my interpretation is that this matter constitutes a rose by any other name. The example concerned a medical officer who said that he was not going to Iraq, although I do not know how that offends against the Hippocratic Oath. But we are now saying that we would not expect a court martial to decide the matter and that the person has to prove his case. It could go right up to the Supreme Court. Are we now saying that the Supreme Court can decide whether an operation is legal, or Parliament? I know which I prefer: our democratic process.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c1633
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Discipline Crime Armed forces Armed conflict Deployment Courts martial Civilians Desertion International law Officers Terrorism Theft Civil disorder
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:44:25 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_340725
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_340725
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_340725