Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Tunnicliffe

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I would like to quote some wise words on this Bill with which I entirely agree:

“those who commit criminal acts … must face justice and must expect to be called to account. However, that should be done without undue delay: periods of delay stretching over years are simply not acceptable.”—[Official Report, 20/1/21; col. 1170.]

That was the opening statement at Second Reading of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. A moment ago, as I understood it, she suggested that the current status quo was perfectly flexible and reasonable and that there should be no change. I do not agree. She has considered this Bill with remarkable fortitude and dealt trenchantly with her colleagues on some of these issues. I admire her very much for that. Having been present in person on the only occasion that a conviction of a war crime has been recorded in a British court, I am relieved that war crimes have now been removed from the presumption against prosecution. Clearly under her influence the Government can think again. I thank her. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for his leadership on this.

No one has suggested throughout the whole passage of the Bill that there has been unacceptable delay by the Service Prosecuting Authority or the office of the Director of Service Prosecutions in bringing prosecutions, and nor has there been any complaint of delay in the listing of cases for trial or in the time taken in the courts martial process.

I referred at previous stages to the difficulties faced in investigations in theatre: the fact that investigations by victims in a hostile country may be made late, the likelihood of a lack of co-operation, the need for security for the investigators themselves, the problems of language and culture and, importantly, the lack of the range of forensic scientific facilities which would be readily available to investigators of domestic crime within the UK. All these pose considerable difficulties. However, the Bill still does not directly address the problem of delayed, shoddy and repeated investigations, which has very much been the concern of many members of the Armed Forces.

The Bill still introduces the novel idea of a presumption against prosecution for murder and for lesser charges to terminate proceedings arbitrarily; that has thankfully been truncated today but is still just about hanging in there on the serious offences of murder and likewise. This anomaly—this presumption against prosecution—may be the subject of law lectures in future, perhaps for a lengthy period until it is reversed, as I am convinced it will be, but will the presumption of prosecution still in this Bill be extended to other categories of public servants? Will there be a presumption against the prosecution of policemen after a number of years, or soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland? We have recently seen senior police officers tried for decisions made, under stress, more than 30 years ago. Have the memories of witnesses to those tragic events faded? Should retired police officers have the threat of prosecution held over them? Today a trial starts in Northern Ireland dealing with the events of 50 years ago. When the promised Bill to protect veterans of Northern Ireland operations is produced, will there be a presumption against prosecution in that? If so, I predict serious riots in Derry.

I return to my amendment, which sets out a practical and principled way of monitoring investigations and stopping them if, in the opinion of the Director of Service Prosecutions, there is insufficient evidence and no prospect of further investigations succeeding. Only if there is new and compelling evidence which satisfies the DSP could such investigations be resumed. It would not be, as at present, at the inclination or judgment of the investigator himself.

I am aware that the government response to my amendments in both this House and the other place, as we heard just now, has been to argue that its time limits are too restrictive. However, flexibility is built into the system I propose: no arbitrary cut-off applicable to all, regardless of the circumstances, but with each case considered individually on its merits. The insertion of time limits to control and monitor the investigation is precisely the point.

The alternative argument advanced by the Government is that Sir Richard Henriques is carrying out a review of the process of investigations. If that is so, it is not I who am premature with my amendment but the Government, who are pushing this Bill forward before he has reported. I know Sir Richard well from the days of my youth when I trespassed on the northern circuit; he is a judge of outstanding ability and integrity. If I were assured that my amendment and the speeches on it would be put before him, and that he could report in time for the Armed Forces Bill—the Second Reading of which we expect in this House perhaps in June—it would materially affect my decision as to whether to press this Motion. I beg to move, but look forward very much to the reply of the noble Baroness.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we continue to accept and recognise the problem of baseless allegations and legal claims arising from Iraq and Afghanistan under both Labour and Conservative Governments. But the Bill, unamended, just does not do what was promised—that is, to protect British personnel serving overseas from vexatious legal claims and shoddy investigations. This is the gaping hole in this Bill, and it could be neatly fixed in the way that was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

I remind the Minister that the conditions set on investigations in the amendment are not arbitrary, nor are they time limited. The proposal ensures timely, not time-limited, investigations. This is not unrealistic, because it has been tried and tested in civilian law, and that is one of the reasons why the former Judge Advocate-General is so keen on such a proposal. We have worked hard with the Government and across the House to try to build a consensus on this. While we believe this has been achieved with colleagues from all sides, the Government remain extremely resistant to proposals, so we are forced to recognise the restraints and realities of ping-pong. Therefore, we support the calls by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for the amendment to be referred to Sir Richard Henriques, and reported on in time for it to be considered in the Armed Forces Bill, to ensure that we return to the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have nothing to say on Motion C, which is purely technical.

The original amendment behind Motion D proposed that the ordinary rules of the Limitation Act should continue to apply to members of Her Majesty's Forces serving in overseas operations. The Government’s objection is that this is discriminatory and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, the whole Bill is discriminatory, not least on the criminal side. It discriminates between personnel serving in overseas operations and personnel serving within the United Kingdom who do not have the protection of the so-called presumption against prosecution, for example, nor the protection against civil suit which these provisions seek to give.



Discrimination is not the problem here, the real issue is discretion: the discretion of a judge, in appropriate circumstances where it is equitable to do so, to extend or disregard the limitation period in actions in tort or, for example, for unlawful detention, or for breach of the articles of the human rights convention—for example, torture—or, in the case of our troops, for negligence, either in the provision of equipment or in training. The law has recognised over the centuries that the imposition of an absolute cut-off may in the circumstances of a particular case be entirely unjust.

Our system has operated quite successfully in cases arising out of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vexatious claims or claims which were so delayed as to make it impossible to try the issues fairly have been struck out in their hundreds. That is the system that we have got, and it is a system that works.

Your Lordships will recall that, at Report, I argued that the clauses which created a blank wall for all litigants, whether foreign nationals, civilian victims or members of the Armed Forces, should be removed from the Bill and that the tried and trusted system that we have—allowing judges to do their job in the particular circumstances of the case—should continue. The Government persist in removing the judges’ discretion, even in the narrow class of service personnel on overseas operations. We shall see how this works out, but I expect that veterans’ organisations will be clamouring at the door of the Ministry of Defence to reverse the decision as soon as possible.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we are very disappointed that the Government have rejected our amendment to Part 2 of the Bill. We still believe that it is simply wrong for those who put their life on the line serving Britain overseas to have less access to compensation and justice than the UK civilians whom they defend, or indeed than their colleagues whose service is largely UK based. The amendment was designed to ensure that claims by troops or former service personnel were not blocked in all circumstances after six years, as they would otherwise be under the Bill.

This provision also directly breaches the Armed Forces covenant, as the director-general of the Royal British Legion confirmed. He argued: “I think it”—by implication, the Bill—

“is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”.—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 86.]

While our concerns have not gone away, we recognise that the Government have shown absolutely no desire to change this, so we will not ask the other place to think again with another vote. However, we strongly urge the Government to think further on this matter, and we will return to it as soon as possible.

For now, I want to thank colleagues for their unwavering support for our amendment, especially the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Boyce. Having created such a widely based coalition against this part of the Bill, the Government should think long and hard and use the opportunity of the Armed Forces Bill to correct this deeply unwise feature of this one.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Tunnicliffe

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as we open the debate for the Report stage of the overseas operations Bill, I want to remind colleagues that, like many across this House, we remain determined to protect our troops from vexatious claims and shoddy investigations. We want it to be done in a way which directly tackles the problems head on, and which is in line with our international obligations. As I move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 6, it is with these aims clearly in mind.

I am sure that the Government will try to portray Amendment 1 as a wrecking amendment, but nothing is further from the truth. It aims to protect troops directly by removing the presumption and ensuring that prosecutors have regard to whether there can be a fair trial given the time allowed.

As drafted, the Bill is silent on the cycle of reinvestigations, and we cannot wait for the outcome of yet another MoD review before we deal with it directly. That is why we also fully support Amendment 6, which states, importantly, that there must be compelling evidence to justify a new investigation. It would place an effective framework around investigations, still allowing them to pursue new leads or witnesses when appropriate. This approach is complemented by Amendment 1, but we accept that Amendment 6 might be seen as the priority.

Ministers have identified problems with vexatious claims and shoddy investigations but are pursuing an indirect approach, and many colleagues do not understand why. We have the Bill in front of us now, so let us amend it now to solve the problems for good. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thought it would be interesting to look back at the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the 2019 election. It said that

“we will introduce new legislation to tackle the vexatious legal claims that undermine our Armed Forces and further incorporate the Armed Forces Covenant into law.”

You will note that nothing is said there about a presumption against prosecution or anything about the criminal law, so the proposals in this Bill have been dreamed up without consultation. Certainly, there was no consultation with the former Judge Advocate-General, Jeff Blackett, who is internationally respected for his expertise in this field. As far as I can ascertain, there was no consultation either with the Director of Service Prosecutions or any of his highly respected predecessors. How, incidentally, in the light of the manifesto commitment can the Government resist the amendment that we shall later discuss in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, on the Armed Forces covenant?

The hole in this Bill is that it does not directly address the scandal of delayed investigations and reinvestigations of service personnel. Amendment 6 would fill that gap with a code of investigation procedures. Investigations are fraught with difficulty in overseas operations. They operate in an insecure environment; potential witnesses may be reluctant to speak; there are language and cultural difficulties; and forensic services of the quality to be found in the UK may be unavailable for pathological examinations, DNA sampling, fingerprints and so on. I recall a case from Iraq in which the body of an alleged victim had been buried on the same day, in accordance with Muslim custom, in a cemetery in Najaf which covers 1,500 acres. No Iraqi witness could pinpoint the exact place and, accordingly, there could be no pathological investigation of the cause of death—indeed, in that case, it was an issue as to whether anybody had been killed at all.

It is obvious, therefore, that investigations may be protracted. It is equally obvious that the possibility of prosecution cannot be held over a service man or woman indefinitely. There has to come a point where a decision is made: should this case proceed, or should it stop? Amendment 6 proposes a workable and practicable code in which the service police or other investigator is supervised and monitored by the Service Prosecuting Authority under the direction of the independent Director of Service Prosecutions. Within six months of the report of allegations to the service police, an investigator has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct to refer the investigation to the SPA. Once he is so satisfied, he must make that report within 21 days, submitting his case papers to date for consideration.

Under the proposed subsection (4), the SPA has power to

“order the investigation to cease if it considers it unlikely that charges will be brought.”

Alternatively, the SPA will advise and direct the investigator on the issues he needs to clarify and the direction in which his inquiry should proceed. If the investigation proceeds, the code in Amendment 6 requires that it be reviewed by the SPA every three months, when a fresh decision will be made on whether to cease or proceed with the investigation. On its conclusion, the investigator must send his final report, with accompanying case papers, to the SPA.

The case cannot be reopened at the whim of the investigators. The consent of the Director of Service Prosecutions would have to be sought and granted only on the grounds that there is new and compelling evidence or information that might materially affect the previous decision to close the investigation and might lead to a charge being made. A decision to reopen would, of course, be challengeable by judicial review. As a final back-up, the Judge Advocate-General is given power to give practice directions for these procedures.

So there we have it: a code tailored for the particular circumstances and difficult environment of overseas operations. I shall be moving Amendment 6 in due course. But I also add my support to Amendment 1. The position of the DSP has evolved. Amendment 1 emphasises an important part of his role—considering the public and the service interest in deciding to prosecute and, namely, whether a fair trial might be prejudiced by delay.

The answer to the problem of delay is not to introduce the concept, novel to serious offences in the criminal law of this country, of presumption against prosecution after an arbitrary period of five years has elapsed. Let us take a likely scenario: an ex-soldier confesses to shooting a wounded prisoner, but no evidence emerges for 10 years because the “wall of silence” of his comrades —a phrase used by the trial judge in the case of Baha Musa—has protected him.

Blanket walls of silence appear in other contexts. I once prosecuted a prisoner and extracted a confession from a fellow prisoner of the abduction and murder of a little girl four years before. The first prisoner said nothing of the man’s confession for five years. But then he became an evangelical Christian and finally reported it to the prison governor. The Government say that for such a heinous crime as shooting a wounded prisoner, the presumption would probably be waived, but by whom? Who would decide whether the threshold of heinousness had been passed? If the presumption would be waived routinely so that every murder in theatre should be prosecuted, then murder as a crime should appear in the schedule to this Bill. But if that is resisted—if there are to be degrees of murder so that the presumption would be waived in one instance but not another—what are the criteria?

I turned to the Bill to see what factors are referred to. First, it is immaterial

“whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify prosecution”

according to Clause 1(2). Secondly, the status of the person killed is not a factor for consideration. As to whether the victim is a combatant or a civilian, captured or wounded, man, woman or child, no factors relating to the murdered person are mentioned in Clauses 1 to 3.

What the prosecutor must consider, however, is the adverse effect of operations on the perpetrator, the conditions he was exposed to and the strains and stresses of combat. But here is the most surprising thing: it is not the effect on the individual under suspicion that is considered—how he personally was affected by the exigencies of service, how he suffered from “shellshock”, to use the First World War phrase. It is not like the case of Sergeant Blackman, who remembered, after he had been convicted but in time for his appeal, that he had personally been suffering from stress, and his responsibility was thereby diminished. No; Clause 2(3) provides that

“the prosecutor must have regard to the exceptional demands and stresses to which members of Her Majesty’s forces are likely to be subject while deployed on overseas operations, regardless of their length of service, rank or personal resilience.”

The test is objective. The presumption against prosecution applies even if the personal resilience of the soldier who commits murder or a war crime is such that he is unaffected by the stresses of combat. It is a charter for the callous, psychopathic killer hiding in a military uniform.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Amendment of Schedule 2) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Tunnicliffe

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I have considered the Motion and concluded that this is almost a tidying-up order that is compatible with public opinion. I was convinced of its value before I heard the Minister, and he failed to unconvince me. So I have just a couple of questions, and to some extent he has answered them.

On service law instruments, I always worry about the level of consultation. When one reads what the consultation has been, it seems—how can I put it?—top-heavy. Clearly, many heads have been consulted. I have two questions. One is about the extent of consultation in the chain of command. Are commanding officers seeing in this change any problems that have not been brought out in the Explanatory Memorandum? Secondly, with service law there is always a question about the extent to which the service personnel concerned have been consulted. We know about the very atmosphere of the military. There are no trade unions or consultative systems. I wonder whether the Government should think more about this area. At the end of the day, this piece of law is about how day-to-day soldiers, sailors and airmen behave towards one another.

Finally—perhaps this has been partially answered—the issue of sexual assault now has more saliency, which has the benefit that people have a higher propensity to report it, with the result that, for those who commit these offences, there is a higher likelihood of punishment under the law. But the object of the exercise is not to have the offences in the first place. That seems to go to the other side of the equation. The Minister talked about making sure that personnel were advised of their rights. We know that the complex area of sexual behaviour can vary between President Trump’s definition of what is not a sexual assault through to the more modern attitude that our young people in the forces are likely to have. As part of the ongoing relationship with our service personnel, is there training, first, in what service law says on the matter, and, secondly, in what I call the almost ethical issues behind sexual behaviour, and in particular the concept of mutual respect? If one could create an overall atmosphere of mutual respect among individuals, where they think more about the impact of their behaviour on others, it would be helpful in every way in service life, and would be particularly helpful in this area. With those very minor comments, we on this side support the order.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I give a very hearty welcome to this statutory instrument. It follows on from our debates in Committee and on Report on what became the Armed Forces Act 2016—and, in particular, on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and my noble friend Lady Jolly. I, too, spoke in that debate. At that point the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendment because he said that the wide ambit of the concept of sexual assault could even include putting your arm around someone’s shoulders. However, he told us that the Service Justice Board was taking a fresh view in light of the arguments and concerns expressed by outside bodies, including in particular Liberty. This is the excellent result.

Military life has its own constraints: there is a very enclosed, if important, society within the Armed Forces. There is an atmosphere in which people do not want to make complaints. As a result, there is a reluctance to complain of and report offences of this nature. It is interesting to look at the American experience. Some noble Lords may recall that I spoke of an inquiry about the CO’s role in military justice in the United States. I gave evidence in September 2013 at a Department of Defense hearing in Washington on what the law was in this country. It was a privilege at that time to hear Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior senator for New York, give evidence. She has been engaged in a campaign to remove military commanders from prosecuting decisions in the United States, as they have been in serious offences in this country. Although she was not successful at that time, she has pursued the matter and brought forward a number of Acts to Congress. Although the Military Justice Improvement Act has bipartisan support, it has been filibustered out of Congress twice. However, she is still pursuing the matter. Her description of the Act is worth quoting because it highlights the problem:

“The carefully crafted Military Justice Improvement Act is designed to professionalize how the military prosecutes serious crimes like sexual assault, and to remove the systemic fear that survivors of military sexual assault describe in deciding whether to report the crimes committed against them. Repeated testimony from survivors and former commanders says that the widespread reluctance on the part of survivors to come forward and report is due to the bias and inherent conflicts of interest posed by the military chain of command’s sole decision-making power over whether cases move forward to a trial”.


She very much looks to the British example and the way we handle it in this country and points out that, in the most recent report in America, 6,000 sexual assaults were reported in the military, which was thought to be only 30% of all assaults committed. Importantly, 60% of the people who made those 30% of reports complained of further retaliation and reprisal after their complaint was made. It is important that we are aware in this country of the possibility of reprisal and retaliation within that closed community. One has only to think of the tragic case of Anne-Marie Ellement, who committed suicide after charges she brought against two members of the Military Police were dismissed, because of the bullying she received for having made the complaint in the first place. I am sure things have improved, but this is an important matter that I hope the Minister and the Ministry of Defence in this country will think about.

Another matter discussed while the Bill was going through in 2016 was the production of statistics. That has been followed through, as the Minister promised at the time, and we see from the statistics produced that there were 104 investigations in 2016. I am sure that is only a tiny minority of the actual assaults that have taken place. Again, this is because of the atmosphere that prevents reporting within the military community.

So far as the United States is concerned, only 9% of the 6,000 complaints of assault led to a conviction. Indeed, Senator Gillibrand concluded that a victim was 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation and reprisal than to see the person about whom they had complained convicted. I hope that is not the position in this country. The importance of dealing with sexual assaults is very much at the forefront of life today. In the military context, it is very important from the point of view of recruiting and retaining military personnel. I am very grateful to the Minister and to the Government for taking this important step in this statutory instrument.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

When British service personnel operate abroad and are stationed abroad, there is an agreement made with the Government of that particular country. A protocol is brought about whereby decisions can be made according to the machinery agreed in that protocol about whether a person committing an offence in, for example, Kenya, should be tried by the local courts or by court martial. Obviously, that would apply to all cases of offences that are committed in Kenya which would be contrary to its law. In all probability, as has happened in Germany, very much would depend on whether the local population was involved. For example, under a protocol with the Kenyan Government, the rape of a Kenyan woman would almost certainly be tried in a Kenyan court. On the other hand, if it involved personnel who were on duty there together, it would almost certainly be dealt with under the protocol by the service disciplinary system. I am proposing that if it amounts to a serious sexual offence, or an extra-territorial offence such as I have described, it could be heard in this country.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Amendments 11 and 12 were Amendments 15 and 16 in Committee. I have reread the debate and do not note anything, other than Kenya, that has been added to them tonight. They go to the essence of the scope of military law. We were not persuaded to support them in Committee and we will not do so now.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Tunnicliffe

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, this amendment was drafted before I had the chance of seeing the draft regulations. It was, in any event, a statement of the bleeding obvious, as one might say, that the officer to whom the complaint was made could not make up his own mind as to whether it was factually correct, well founded or anything of that sort. I would have hoped for a favourable response from the Minister in any event. However, I now see that the draft regulations flesh out the grounds given in proposed new Section 340B(5)(c). Why that is done in regulations and not in the Bill I do not know but those three grounds are well confined and I am quite satisfied that the fear that I had was ill founded. Nevertheless, I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, we degrouped Amendment 20 and will move it in its place.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, Amendment 7 would make it clear that a service complaint could not be rendered inadmissible by the officer receiving it simply because he believed it was without merit. It may be helpful if I explain the role of the specified officer on receipt of a service complaint. His or her role will be to decide whether the complaint is admissible in accordance with new Section 340B. The officer will not consider the merits of the complaint at all at this stage. That is not possible under the Bill as the appointment of a person or panel of persons to decide whether the complaint is well founded can take place only after the admissibility decision under new Section 340C. The officer’s function at the admissibility stage is to see whether, first, the complaint is about a matter excluded from the service complaints system in regulations made by the Secretary of State, secondly, whether the complaint is out of time and, thirdly, whether the complaint is inadmissible on other grounds specified by the Defence Council in regulations.

Noble Lords will have seen the initial draft regulations prepared by the department which cover, among other things, the other grounds of inadmissibility. It is proposed that those grounds are that the complainant does not allege any wrong, or that the complaint is a repeat of one already brought by the complainant and being considered in the service complaints process, or one that has already been determined.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee helpfully reported on the Bill in advance of Committee, for which we are grateful. It drew attention to the powers conferred by new Section 340B(5)(c) on the Defence Council to specify additional grounds of inadmissibility and concluded that those powers were too widely drawn. My department responded to the committee, explaining what these regulations are intended to cover and made reference to the initial draft regulations that are now available to Members of the House.

Now that noble Lords have seen what is intended here, I hope that some of their concerns about the scope of this provision will have been allayed. There is no intention to use this power to rule out broad categories of complaint. That would run counter to the clear policy behind the Bill to consider all wrongs in relation to a person’s service, subject to very limited exceptions. In any event, I have asked officials to explore whether anything further might be done in relation to the scope of this power. That will be done before Report stage.

The role of the receiving officer at the admissibility stage is quite limited and is strictly focused on the matters set out in the Bill, as will be amplified in the regulations in due course. There is no power for a complaint to be declared inadmissible on its merits at this stage. If a receiving officer declared a complaint inadmissible on merit grounds, the complainant would be able to apply for a review of that decision by the ombudsman. In the circumstances, we would expect the ombudsman to overturn the inadmissibility decision and the complaint would proceed. The ombudsman’s decision on any such review will be binding on both the parties. That is provided for in Regulation 7 of the initial draft service complaints regulations. In the circumstances, I must resist Amendment 7 and ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.