---

Armed Forces Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I thought that it was important to make that point. It is in the vital interests of the services, the civilians who live and work with them and the civilian population among whom they operate that there is a fair and robust system of justice outside the United Kingdom to deal with offences by civilians, as well as service personnel. We must recognise that the use of civilians deployed with our Armed Forces has increased in recent years. This is the reason for our general approach in this area. The largest constituency affected is our service families overseas. We realise that 20,000 or so children accompany them. This presents real challenges. We must accept, however, that from time to time these under 18s may commit serious offences against other service dependants or even against service personnel in UK service bases overseas. In these circumstances, as the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Kingsland, have said, the foreign local jurisdiction may be highly undesirable. Even if it affords a compliant court, it will not apply the law of England and Wales and may not conduct proceedings in English. I believe that we would be failing in our responsibilities if we did not provide that. Of course we must ensure that the court martial makes proper provision for juveniles and I know that judge advocates receive the same training as Crown Court judges in this respect. Amendment No. 35 seeks to permit service personnel and civilians subject to service discipline to elect trial before civilian courts in the United Kingdom where those civilian courts have extra-territorial jurisdiction. I start by restating two key principles that underpin the Bill and with which, I am sure, no noble Lord would disagree. The first is that our Armed Forces require a separate system of military justice. The second is that the service system must underpin service discipline at all times. The military context in which offences occur is important in operational and non-operational environments. Although it is not absolutely clear, it appears that the purpose of Amendment No. 35 is to permit service personnel and civilians subject to service discipline facing the most serious criminal charges to elect trial before the civilian courts. It therefore undermines both the key principles just described. Giving such persons the right to opt out of the military justice system, which would be the effect of the amendment, would have a detrimental effect on its standing. It would suggest a lack of faith in the service system, and that the military context is not crucial to the handling of serious offences committed in the service environment. I am convinced of the case for a separate military justice system. I recognise the importance of the military context. I believe that our military criminal justice system is competent and compliant. The military justice system is well able to deal with the most serious cases. The recent decision of the Judge Advocate General to appoint a High Court judge to a court martial and the willingness of service prosecutors from time to time to instruct civilian counsel demonstrates that, on those rare occasions when specialist experience is required, the military justice system can import it. The result is that the most serious and complex cases can be dealt with and the system, in turn, commands the confidence of the public and the Armed Forces. It is not hard to envisage circumstances where the interests of justice might be best served and victims’ rights best protected by trying charges together. The amendment would prevent exactly that, where a series of serious criminal offences included some committed overseas. Similarly, if the alleged offences included both criminal conduct offences and service discipline offences, should the accused be able to force separate hearings? Again, that cannot be right. A key characteristic of the military criminal justice system is that it is able to conduct trials anywhere in the world. In recent years courts martial have sat in the United States, Belize and the Falkland Islands, and there is a trial pending in Brunei later this year. Trials overseas often make good legal as well as military sense. There are many reasons for a portable, effective and, of course, compliant court-martial system. Making that system a hostage to the preference of the accused in the way proposed would not work. In response to Amendment No. 31, I have set out our position on civilians subject to service discipline, following the recent case of Martin. I believe that our military system is compliant and that it delivers a high-quality system of English law in the English language, anywhere in the world. However, if, on consideration, we need to make changes in the light of the judgment, we will do so. Powers already in the Bill make that possible. In doing so, we will take careful account of any requirement of compelling circumstances regarding the trial of civilians subject to service discipline. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.