Skip to main content

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for giving me the opportunity to respond. As he says, Amendment No. 184 reflects an issue raised by the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights published on 21 July 2006. The committee questioned why, given the importance the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Grieves placed on the need for judge advocates to be civilians, this was not stated in the Bill. All judge advocate appointments are made by the Lord Chancellor after a fair and open competition conducted by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is my contention that the civilian status of judge advocates is protected both by their method of appointment and by the policy of all the Armed Forces, most particularly the Royal Navy, following the Grieves judgment of 2003. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I understand the concern expressed and trust that in the light of my explanation, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment. The new clause proposed by Amendment No. 184A defines who may be a judge advocate. The Judge Advocate General is responsible for appointing judge advocates to individual trials. Under this clause, the Judge Advocate General may select a judge advocate who has been appointed under Section 30 of the Courts Martial (Appeals) Act 1951, or he may request that a High Court judge is nominated by or on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice. The power to select judges of the High Court in England and Wales will rarely be used, but as noble Lords will be aware, one has been selected for an important trial which began recently, arising out of the death in 2003 of an Iraqi citizen in British custody. As at present, if the Judge Advocate General wishes to select a High Court judge for a trial, the Lord Chief Justice will need to be convinced that the case is a suitable one for such a judge. The Judge Advocate General will then be informed of the name of the High Court judge under the cab rank rule. Amendment No. 201ZA is a consequential amendment to add a cross-reference to the new clause into the definition section.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c442-3 
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