---

Armed Forces Bill

This group deals with amendments to the Summary Appeal Court—Amendments Nos. 101 to 105, relating to Clauses 140, 142 and 146. I shall focus on those amendments first. The Summary Appeal Court was first introduced under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. The services have therefore had almost six years of practical experience of it. This has helped us considerably in drafting the Bill in that regard. With regard to Amendment No. 101 to Clause 140, we think that the 14-day initial period, which currently applies under the service discipline Acts, is one that sufficiently balances the interests of the offender, the services and the system generally. It must be remembered that there is an automatic right of appeal. So the individual is merely required to give notice of his intention to appeal and does not need to supply any grounds within this 14-day period. There is provision in Clause 140(2)(b) and (3) for this initial period to be extended with the leave of the court, either before the initial period expires or at a later stage. So in appropriate cases the offender will be permitted a longer period. One of the most important benefits of the summary hearing process is that it can deal with cases quickly. As long as this is balanced against the need for the accused to have a reasonable time in which to prepare his case, then dealing swiftly with summary cases, and that includes any appeal, should be the objective. This works in the interests of the accused, any victim and the interests of the services. To extend the initial period for appeal to 28 days would not assist in the aspiration that such lower level cases be heard and disposed of as soon after the original incident as is reasonable. There are no factors that suggest that the current 14-day period is causing any difficulty for appellants or unfairness. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. Amendments Nos. 102 to 104 all relate to the period that an officer must have served before he is qualified to sit as a member of the SAC. First, they remove the provision that officers with an aggregate of three years’ commissioned service are qualified, so that only those with three years’ continuous experience would be qualified. Secondly, an officer who was a warrant officer is not subject to a three-year qualification. The amendment seeks to apply this exception to officers who were senior non-commissioned officers before they became commissioned officers. The provisions in the Bill ensure that those who act as a member of the Summary Appeal Court will have sufficient service experience, including the experience of commanding others, to properly undertake their responsibilities as a Summary Appeal Court member. Not all commissioned officers will have served continuously for a three-year period but will have over three years’ aggregate experience. Some officers will have left their service and subsequently rejoined, or may have left their service to join another. The experience level of such officers is not diminished simply because of a break in their service. The amendments would have the effect of preventing such officers being appointed as a member of the Summary Appeal Court and would therefore reduce the pool of those who might be appointed as a member. It is not right or sensible to disqualify certain officers who possess the necessary skills and experience from membership of the SAC. On the second point, a warrant officer is qualified on the basis of the skills and experience that he will inevitably have acquired. A senior non-commissioned officer will not always have acquired those, and it would not therefore always be appropriate for an officer to qualify for membership simply because he previously held that rank. I therefore ask the noble Lord to consider not moving his amendments. On Amendment No. 105, I can reassure noble Lords that the clause as drafted means that the whole period which the appellant has served will be taken into account when the SAC considers substituting a term of detention and the length of it. The inclusion of ““full”” adds nothing. I trust, therefore, that noble Lords feel able to not move this amendment. Finally, I will deal with the government amendments in this group, which simply change the reference from the ““Supreme Court”” of Northern Ireland to the ““Court of Judicature””. The Supreme Court of Northern Ireland is renamed under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as the Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland. Although that term has not yet been commenced, it makes sense for the Bill to reflect it. It occurs first in Clause 142 in relation to membership of the Summary Appeal Court and then in Clauses 155, 348, 358, 359 and in Schedule 9, where there is a need to refer to specific legal qualifications including those of Northern Irish solicitors and barristers. I urge noble Lords to accept these amendments.