Armed Forces Bill (Fifth sitting)

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Al Carns]

These are technical changes to enhance the service justice system that deal with some of those knotty issues such as mental health. I recommend that the Committee fully support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Guidance on exercise of criminal jurisdiction

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 25, page 43, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) must require that, before a victim is asked to express a preference regarding jurisdiction—

(i) the victim is provided with a standardised explanation of the service justice system and the civilian justice system,

(ii) such information is presented in a clear, accessible and neutral manner,

(iii) the information includes an explanation of the key features, processes, available support and potential outcomes of each system, sufficient to enable the victim to make an informed decision, and

(iv) the victim is informed of the availability of any independent legal advice or advocacy and how it may be accessed,

(b) must require that—

(i) a written record is made of the information provided to the victim, and

(ii) where a victim expresses a preference, a record is made of the reasons for that preference, so far as provided by the victim,

(c) must not present information in a way that is misleading or lacking appropriate context.”.

This amendment creates requirements for the information victims receive regarding both justice systems.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 19, in clause 25, page 44, line 33, at end insert—

““independent” means independent of—

(a) the chain of command, and

(b) any body responsible for the investigation or prosecution of the offence.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18 and defines independence for the purposes of that amendment.

Clause stand part.

Clause 26 stand part.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I will speak in support of amendments 18 and 19 and, in doing so, will address clause 25 more broadly.

At its heart, clause 25 concerns one of the most sensitive and important decisions in the entire service justice framework—the point at which a victim is asked to express a preference as to whether an allegation should proceed in the service justice system or the civilian justice system. For many victims, this is the first moment at which they are invited into a process that will shape not only the course of an investigation, but their experiences of justice itself. That is precisely why it is incumbent on us to get it right.

I think all of us would accept that asking a victim to make a jurisdictional choice without proper, balanced and comprehensible information risks placing an unfair burden upon them at a moment of deep vulnerability. It risks substituting clarity for confusion, and it risks turning what should be an informed decision into, in effect, an uninformed guess between systems they may not fully understand.

Amendment 18 seeks to address that concern directly, and it does so by placing clear statutory requirements on the nature, quality and neutrality of the information that must be provided before any preference is expressed. That principle is incredibly important because, if we are asking victims to make decisions that can affect the trajectory of an investigation, we have a duty—indeed, a moral obligation—to ensure that those decisions are properly informed.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn, and commend clauses 25 and 26 to the Committee.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

On the basis of the Minister’s clarification and reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Driving disqualification orders: reduced disqualification period

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Al Carns]

At present, service courts are empowered to make a driving disqualification order against an offender in proceedings for a service offence. However, there is no legal mechanism for service courts to reduce that period of disqualification from driving where the offender undertakes an approved course, unlike the civilian justice system. Clause 27 will enable the service courts—the court martial and the service civilian court—to make an order to reduce a period of disqualification from driving where the offender satisfactorily completes an approved course. This new power will be available to a service court where it convicts an offender of a certain road traffic offence, such as drink-driving, and imposes a driving prohibition of 12 months or more. These provisions address a gap in the existing legislation that has meant that the powers of service courts in relation to driving prohibitions are more limited than those of their civilian counterparts. It will ensure that the service courts have the same tools available to them as the civilian courts when dealing with these sorts of cases.