Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) 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
We are signatories to the 1984 Convention on the Prohibition of Torture, which prohibits torture in all circumstances. Its intimate link with torture makes extraordinary rendition an international crime. It is an international crime which is not just applicable to states: it is a crime that engages the actions and responsibilities of individuals who are themselves vulnerable to prosecution for any transgression of the convention. Moreover, every state that is a signatory of the 1984 convention is under a legal duty not only to prosecute anyone who commits torture within its jurisdiction, but also anyone who is complicit in an act of torture. That follows from Article 4 of the convention. I am in no doubt that if the commanding officer of any aerodrome in the United Kingdom had reason to believe that an in-transit aircraft was engaged in an act of external rendition, or there was a real risk that it was so engaged, he would be under a personal legally binding duty to investigate the matter, irrespective of any superior orders he had had to the contrary. Not to act, in those circumstances, would render him liable to prosecution for complicity in torture. That being so, in my view this amendment is unnecessary; because all the ingredients of the duty are there already by nature of our international obligations which run right through to the actions of individuals. But if we were to have an amendment of this sort on the statute book, I would certainly wish to have it drafted differently. By saying that I in no way intend to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Garden, who I applaud for raising the issue in the course of the debate. The particular problem I have with the drafting of his amendment is that a commanding officer could escape the personal responsibilities that he is undoubtedly under simply by accepting the word of a superior officer that there was no problem. That is almost counterproductive; in fact it misleads a commanding officer, as perhaps the Italian officer now being prosecuted in Italy found out to his cost. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Garden, helpfully nodding in assent. I do not think it is necessary to have something on the statute book, but if we are, we need to reflect a little further on the drafting.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c439-40
- 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 12:41:00 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351431
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351431
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351431