Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) 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

I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of Amendment No. 60—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lyell and Lord Mayhew, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I also include the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. If I was perhaps sheepish on my side, he was not exactly bullish about supporting Amendment No. 60, but I think that he does. Indeed, he says that he completely supports it. I am grateful that the Minister is going to think about the problem in relation to civilian juveniles who have not signed up to the Army, the Navy or whatever but find themselves subject to courts martial. As to the objection to dealing with civil offences, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is right. In my view, until the court martial system is completely consonant with the Crown Court—an aim announced by the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett—it is wrong that a serviceman should face a different tribunal for an offence committed in this country. I refer not to the more serious offences but to the ordinary, run-of-the-mill ones. It is wrong that he should face a completely different tribunal with procedures that are not as acceptable as those faced by the ordinary member of the public, who will be before the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court for the same offence committed in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was right to point out the difficulties that apply to offences committed abroad. I agree with him that it is necessary to have a service disciplinary system that deals with criminal acts abroad. But it is a different matter when one asks whether it is right in this country to have a competing jurisdiction for a person just because he has signed up to the services and whether it is right that he should be at greater peril if he is charged with offences under one system than he would be under the other. I am grateful for the support in relation to juveniles, and I shall pursue that matter. My opposition to the wider picture is, as I said, part of a long-running campaign, which I cannot pursue further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 42 agreed to. Clauses 43 to 49 agreed to.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c287-8 
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