Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Drayson (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Armed Forces Bill.


Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, I accept the noble Lord’s point. In the Martin case there were other factors. Besides his age, Martin was no longer subject to service law. He had been back in the UK for over a year and his father was no longer in the Army. The European Court of Human Rights commented that it had ““considerable doubts”” about whether it would have found the reasons for court-martial trial ““compelling””. I believe that we should provide for all civilians subject to service discipline to be subject toa system of investigation and trial which will apply the criminal law of England and Wales, which conducts its proceedings in English and which is ECHR compliant. This is especially important for contractors and others who increasingly accompany our forces on operations abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, this evening stated that civilians subject to service law should not be subject to trial by court martial for any offence in the UK carrying life imprisonment. I should make it clear that a civilian is never subject to service law for offences committed in the United Kingdom. That jurisdiction only applies to the services abroad.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
686 c199-200 
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