Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) 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

My amendment includes in subsection (2): "““In determining the appropriate sentence, the judge advocate shall consult the members of the Court Martial””." I do not suggest that the judge advocate should sentence on his own, as he would in the Crown Court, without consulting the members of the court martial and obtaining their views on the military disciplinary aspects of the case. I suggest that the responsibility for the sentence should rest with the judge. The Minister has said that the judge advocate does play a part. He has a vote; indeed, he has a casting vote. But he may be in a minority of one when the original vote is taken. We must remember that these decisions are taken by simple majority, not by a unanimous view. It may not be possible for him to exercise a casting vote; he may be overruled by the panel. The difference in a sentence may not be between five years and four years. For a defendant, it may be between being sent to prison, remanded or losing his liberty in the service context. He may be sent to a civil prison if he receives a sentence of over two years or he may be in military confinement if it is less. It could be the difference between the board wishing to send someone to prison for less than two years or a community sentence about which the judge knows. He may not have served as a clandestine solicitor in a community service operation, as the Lord Chief Justice has, but he will know a little more about alternative forms of punishment. It is not right that although the judge participates he has initially only one vote and can be overruled by all the members of the panel. I shall return to that matter on Report. I hope that Members of the Committee and the Minister will think more widely about the problem so that we can have as good a debate. Meanwhile, I thank all those who have participated today.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c379-80 
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