Proceeding contribution from Lord Goldsmith (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
I thought it right to speak to this amendment myself because it relates to my role, it arises out of the Trooper Williams case and I believe that, by doing so, I would respond to the wishes of the Committee. I made that decision before fortuitously meeting the noble Lord recently and telling him that. Therefore, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Drayson, who has charge of the Bill in this House, for giving way to me on this amendment. I do not need to say anything about Amendment No. 208, which is entirely consequential. I may touch briefly on Clause 126, which is in this grouping, but I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is intending to oppose the Question whether the clause shall stand part. He shakes his head, so perhaps I shall explain it briefly and say no more. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, I acknowledge with admiration the clarity and energy with which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has pursued his concern in previous debates and today. I suggest, and shall be suggesting to him, that by doing so he has achieved the essence of what he wanted to do—not perhaps by the route he now suggests, but he has achieved it in substance. His concern and that of other noble Lords arose out of the Trooper Williams case. I do not propose to rehearse the facts again. I am a little tempted to do so by one or two remarks with which I do not agree, but I am going to issue a very firm ordinance of self-denial. We have rehearsed the issue in this House fully. There are some differences of opinion, but what matters now is the future and not the past. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has rightly acknowledged that the particular circumstances that gave rise to the Trooper Williams case will not arise again because of the provision in the Bill, if passed, under which a commanding officer will not be able to stop the service prosecuting authority ever considering whether a case should be proceeded with in the military system. That is what happened. The only way that a case could then be considered by a prosecutor was in the civilian system, and that is what took place. The Bill will remove the power of the commanding officer to dismiss a charge in those circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, there are further changes which are highly relevant. When the Director of Service Prosecutions considers a case and decides not to proceed with it—this is under Clause 126—he will have the power to give a direction which would, in effect, bar any further service or civilian prosecution for the same offence. In addition, where the service police investigate allegations of serious offences and decide that there is sufficient evidence to charge, they will have to refer the case to the Director of Service Prosecutions. As an amendment tabled by the Government makes clear, the service police must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the commanding officer of such a referral. It is the intention to provide in regulations made under the Bill rules that enable the commanding officer to put any relevant factors before the service police and the Director of Service Prosecutions before the service police refer the case to the director and before the director decides whether to charge. I believe that those amendments as a package meet the concerns highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and by other noble and noble and gallant Lords. Therefore, I venture to suggest that his concerns have been listened to and have substantially been addressed. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that I do not deal with this amendment on the basis that he has put forward—that is, that the possibility of a case being in the civilian system will not arise again. That simply is not right. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, noted and as I have said before, it is a commonplace that in cases which arise out of conduct in this country, there are prosecutions in the civilian court. So far as concerns action overseas, active service and operational circumstances, I have said—it has been said by others—that I envisage that a civilian prosecution will take place only in exceptional circumstances. I have not said, and I do not believe that the noble Lord believes that he said either, that such a case will never be brought within the civilian system. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because we have met the concerns. I want to come back to one point but not for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It would not be right for me, standing on my feet as the authority ultimately responsible for making certain decisions, to stand by silently and accede by silence to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c317-9
- 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 10:41:35 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350753
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350753
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350753