Proceeding contribution from Lord Garden (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.
Armed Forces Bill
moved Amendment No. 19: Page 5, line 19, leave out ““life”” and insert ““ten years”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised my concerns in Committee about what I saw as the draconian maximum sentence for desertion. Given that the Minister has said that he is going to think again about this clause, I am in two minds over whether to pursue at this stage the amendment before us. On the other hand, he let slip in his response to me that even when he has considered it, he is going to leave life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. So it is probably worth dealing with the issue while we can on Report. We are no longer in the day of the press gang or of keeping our people in by fear of retribution; we have an all-volunteer force. Indeed, as I pointed out in Committee, the maximum punishment is so great that commanders fear to press desertion as a charge and put forward absent without official leave instead, however long people spend away. Even on the rare occasions when charges are pressed, the punishment tends to be measured in days of detention rather than years of imprisonment. So we have an offence with such a heavy possible maximum punishment that it is not going to be used. That is a matter of concern. One new factor is that, since we debated this matter in Committee last July, the Government have brought to the House amendments to rectify the use of another excessive punishment, which at the time included desertion as one of the causes. I am talking about World War I. Then, of course, the maximum punishment was the death penalty; today, the maximum penalty available is life imprisonment. It seems that we need to learn something from this. We had to do some very curious legislative work in order to provide limited pardons for those who were executed during World War I, some for desertion. It seems that we are again just trying to replicate legislation without thinking about the circumstances. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, spoke so strongly in support of a maximum of 10 years rather than life imprisonment when we considered this in Committee. She has added her name to my amendment and it is to her regret that she is overseas and unable to speak to it. She said in Committee: "““We are talking about proportionality, and it is not proportionate to issue a life sentence for desertion””.—[Official Report, 24/7/06; col. 1632.]" If you look at the other offences where one haslife sentences or sentences of 10 years, you see that10 years fits much better in this case. I have decided to pursue the amendment today. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c186-7
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Disciplinary proceedings Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Discipline Crime Alcoholic drinks Detainees Armed forces Age Conduct Deployment Courts martial Civilians Desertion Certification Defence equipment Jurisdiction Drugs International law Membership Prisoners Misuse Life imprisonment Officers Sentencing Tribunals Young people Rules of engagement
- Legislation
- Armed Forces Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:34:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356400
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356400
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_356400