Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 aim to address challenges in forming court martial boards when senior officers are involved. A court martial consists of a judge and a board of military personnel, similar to a jury in civilian courts. The board determines the innocence or guilt of the defendant and, if they are convicted, assists the judge in deciding the sentence.

Currently, at least one lay member of the board must be an officer who is qualified to be the president of the board, and this president must rank higher than the defendant—particularly when the defendant holds lower ranks. However, in cases where a senior officer is being prosecuted, it may be difficult to find a suitable president who is not personally acquainted with the defendant. Although these cases are rare, the Government have recognised the importance of ensuring that the service justice system is equipped to handle such situations as and when they arise.

This instrument aims to modify these rules to extend the pool of eligible officers who can serve as president, particularly when the defendant may hold a senior rank, such as OF 6 or higher. The primary purpose of this statutory instrument is to improve the flexibility and functionality of the court martial system, particularly in cases involving senior officers. By allowing officers of at least rank OF 6—such as a commodore, brigadier or air commodore—to serve as president when the defendant holds the same rank, this amendment addresses the challenges of forming a court martial board for high-ranking individuals.

Currently, one of the main obstacles when prosecuting senior officers is finding a qualified president who is not personally acquainted with the defendant. In rare cases, the existing requirement that the president must be a higher rank than the defendant, particularly in cases involving senior officers, has proven difficult due to limited personnel who meet the criteria and do not have prior relationships with the defendant. This amendment provides greater flexibility in the composition of the court martial board and ensures that it remains capable of fulfilling its role in these uncommon but crucial cases.

The change also seeks to ensure the court martial system’s adaptability, particularly given the evolving nature of military justice. Although such high-profile cases involving senior officers are rare, it is essential that the service justice system is prepared to handle them effectively as and when they arise. By allowing a broader pool of officers to serve as president, the amendment reduces the potential for delays and disruptions, ensuring that justice can be administered without unnecessary obstacles. This amendment applies across the UK, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories—except Gibraltar—thus ensuring its relevance and consistency under service law, regardless of where the personnel involved are stationed.

While this amendment is largely viewed as a practical and necessary update to the rules, several important questions remain regarding its broader implications. First, how has the Minister assessed the potential impact of this change on the impartiality of court martial boards, especially in cases involving senior officers with extensive personal or professional connections to the board members? Secondly, what specific measures will be put in place to ensure transparency, avoid conflicts of interest when selecting presidents for cases involving high-ranking officers and ensure the integrity of the trial process?

In considering this amendment, how does the Minister plan to address the potential for further systemic reforms in the service justice system, particularly with the upcoming Armed Forces Commissioner Bill?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions and general support for the change that we are making.

I have a couple of points. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I agree with one thing and fundamentally disagree with another, as she probably expected. This usually happens in our dialogue, but we get on well—up to a point. There is disagreement on her first point, but no disagreement on the need for fairness in the way the service justice system operates. We have seen, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, the various reviews that have taken place and the changes that need to occur.

I will deal with this before I come to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on which I slightly take issue. She knows that serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape should be dealt with in the civilian justice system. There has been discussion about that. With respect to that proposal, the MoD is considering the current model of concurrent jurisdiction between the civilian and service justice systems for serious offences such as rape. That specifically answers those points about serious offences that the noble Baroness made; there is ongoing discussion and thought being given to how that may or may not be taken forward.

There is a debate about 16 and 17 year-olds being able to join the military. Let me say where the Government and a large number of people stand on this. It is common to call them “child soldiers”, but the noble Baroness knows that 16 and 17 year-olds are not allowed into conflict. That is the case. With respect to Harrogate, she also knows that some cases have been documented and dealt with, and should there be any cases of bullying or inappropriate behaviour, they will always be dealt with as it is unacceptable. The Army thinks that; we all think that that is totally unacceptable.

I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness—this is my opinion, and many will take issue with this both within and between parties—on her point about 16 and 17 year-olds. I have been to Harrogate, as I think the noble Baroness has. She has not. I thought she has, and I apologise. Places such as Harrogate and others, but mainly Harrogate, give 16 and 17 year-olds, many of whom are from the most difficult circumstances, an opportunity that would not be available to many of them. I am not defending any bullying or inappropriate behaviour, but the only way that some 16 and 17 year-olds from some of the most difficult and challenging circumstances have ever got anywhere is because of the training, discipline and structure that were given to them when they were 16 and 17 years old. That is not everybody’s view. Some people fundamentally disagree with it, but I will argue that with people time and time again. That is a really important point.

The noble Baroness disagrees. This is a clash of view and of opinion that may—to go on a little about this—be worth a debate in the Chamber, Moses Room or wherever because it is fundamental. The Government, many of us and I stand firmly behind the principle of giving opportunity to 16 and 17 year-olds through the military in an appropriate way. Therefore, I would be pleased to lead a debate on behalf of those who think that we should take this forward. Notwithstanding that, one out of two points is not too bad. These are serious points: there was the point about the service justice system and the changes that may or may not be needed, and we have our differences on Harrogate.