Proceeding contribution from Lord Drayson (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 12 October 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
In responding to Amendment No. 132, I shall also respond to Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 and to Amendment No. 156A, which is within the group. We are unclear from Amendment No. 133 about the type of information that the noble Lord seeks in the briefing notes if the amendment were accepted. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would be inappropriate for a court member to be provided with any information about the details of the case in advance of the trial. Such information could be prejudicial to a fair trial, and I am sure noble Lords would agree that that is to be avoided. In addition, a court martial member does not require a briefing on the law in advance of the trial, as he will be guided by the judge advocate in matters relating to legal points. I assume that the noble Lord intends the briefing notes to relate to matters such as the duties and responsibilities of panel members—for example, the duty fairly to try an accused, court room procedures, and so on. Court martial members already receive this information about these matters, which is achieved either through the issue of standard directions by the judge advocate at the trial or through written instructions issued to panel members when they are selected. In that respect, the lay members of the court receive far more information than a juror in the civilian system receives. The practice of providing written instructions to lay members of the court in advance of the trial will continue under the Bill, but the preparation and delivery of the information is an administrative function. We, therefore, do not believe that it needs to be provided for in rules, but can instead be put into guidance. I trust that noble Lords will welcome the so-called slip rule for the court martial. Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 introduce a power to create this in rules made under the Bill. The slip rule is a power to respond to errors made in sentencing and is analogous to that which exists in the Crown Court. As with the Crown Court equivalent, the power will be exercisable only within 28 days of the original sentence or order being awarded, except when the original court martial was held outside the British islands, in which case an extension to that time limit may be appropriate. The main difference from the Crown Court power is who may exercise that power. That is because at a court martial trial the judge advocate and the lay members jointly determine sentence. The court martial power will therefore be exercised by the original judge advocate and the same members, but if any of the original lay members are unavailable a new panel of different lay members will be used. However, it must be the judge advocate who sat on the original trial. When the judge advocate has acted alone at the relevant sentencing hearing—for example, where he has activated a suspended sentence alone—he will be able to apply the slip rule but, again, it must be the same judge advocate. These amendments will also be beneficial because the Bill removes the non-judicial review of court martial decisions currently available under the service discipline Acts. A slip rule will enable the speedy correction of sentencing errors without the need for an appeal to the court martial appeal court, and has the strong support of the Judge Advocate General and the services. Amendment No. 134A removes the current rule-making power that allows for appeals only against the imposition of reporting restrictions and replaces it with a wider appeals power. It allows rules to be made so that the imposition of reporting restrictions at preliminary hearings or the trial itself may be appealed. It also allows for all other orders and rulings made at preliminary hearings to be the subject of appeals, as they are in the civilian system. Of course, these other orders or rulings are not to be the subject of appeal if they are made during the trial. That is because the proper time for appealing any errors of law is at the conclusion of the trial rather than interrupting the trial itself to appeal a judge advocate’s decision. Amendment No. 156A amends Schedule 8—
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c370-2
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Children Compensation Armed forces Death Convictions Aircraft Courts martial Desertion Coroners Employment Equality Drugs Harassment Judges International law Qualifications Powers Membership Prosecutions Misuse Staff Officers Prerogative of mercy Miscarriages of justice Military law Military aircraft Sentencing Young people Reserve forces Testing Rules of procedure World War I Time limits Trial in camera
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:40:02 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351322
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351322
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351322