Proceeding contribution from Lord Drayson (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HL) on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
The offence as drafted, like the offence which it replaces in the existing service discipline Acts, is designed to prevent specified types of misbehaviour when they are likely to result in a disturbance. It recognises that there is a low level at which such misbehaviour between service personnel should not automatically be an offence. The clause therefore limits the offence to where it is serious enough that a disturbance is likely. I understand the arguments that the noble Lord made as a result of what we learnt from the reports on Deepcut and so forth, but Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 would make any insult, for example, an offence, even if there was no risk of a disturbance. They would also make any harassment an offence. Harassment is already covered by the comparatively new criminal offence of harassment under Section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The inclusion of harassment in this clause is therefore unnecessary. Moreover, it would create an offence which, because it could be committed by a single incident, would be inconsistent with the 1997 Act, under which harassment depends on a course of conduct. Finally, these amendments provide that thecourt martial can impose a restraining order under Clause 228. We believe this is unnecessary as a restraining order is not a punishment and so is not precluded by the restrictions in the clause on punishments. Clause 228 would already allow the court to make such an order. Clause 22 highlights the importance of trust and respect in the relationship between commanders and those under command. The offence is about the seriousness of mistreatment by superiors of their subordinates. Amendment No. 49 would extend the offence to ill-treatment by a person who is not the victim’s superior officer, but is pretending to be. This is clearly outside what this offence is really about, which is the abuse of authority. There are other service disciplinary or criminal offences that would be more appropriately used where the offender only pretends to be a superior.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c271-2
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Discipline Crime Alcoholic drinks Courts Armed forces Arrests Conduct Deployment Aircraft Courts martial Civilians Certification Defence equipment Evidence Eligibility Jurisdiction Drugs Maladministration Misconduct Powers Membership Prosecutions Misuse Public opinion Officers Low flying Young people Trials Rules of procedure Rules of engagement
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-04-15 10:41:28 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350656
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350656
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350656