| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Court Martial Judgment
3.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson):
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The Statement is as follows:
7 Nov 2005 : Column 408
"Mr Speaker, I want to make it clear from the outset that the Armed Forces operate to the very highest standards. All personnel are aware of the necessity to operate within the law. It remains MoD policy to initiate a service police investigation into every instance where the action of British service personnel may have led directly to the death or injury of Iraqi civilians. The Government back our troops fully. I, along with the Chiefs of Staff, am very proud of the role the British Armed Forces play in the world. They do an exceptional job in very difficult circumstances and operate to the very highest standards.
"The trial of the seven members and former members of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment concluded on 3 November in Colchester, after the judge advocate directed the board to find all seven defendants not guilty. The trial related to an incident in Iraq which occurred at the roadside in Maysan province in southern Iraq on 11 May 2003, following which Mr Nadhem Abdullah, an Iraqi citizen, died. The seven individuals were jointly charged with murder and violent disorder.
"I am limited as to what I can say about the judge advocate's decision, as this is a matter for my noble and learned friend, the Attorney-General. However, it may be helpful if I place this trial in its operational context.
"The end of the trial has raised the question of why these soldiers faced these serious charges. Soldiers understand that they are required to operate within the law and their rules of engagement and can be held to account for their actions. All soldiers in Iraq receive a briefing on this. They also receive training in the law of armed conflict as part of their annual training. Soldiers are not above the law.
"Whenever an incident occurs or an allegation is made, a Royal Military Police investigation is launched by the commanding officer. The conduct and scope of such investigations is determined independently of the chain of command.
"The RMP Special Investigation Branch is a fully professional investigative agency, which conforms to UK Home Office standards where appropriate and follows civilian police investigative procedures. Investigations are carried out thoroughly and professionally and in accordance with the rules of evidence, UK best practice and application of the standards of the Association of Chief Police Officers, but operational circumstances or cultural differences may limit the forensic and investigative opportunities.
"In this case, the RMP was operating in a hostile and volatile environment, which clearly impacted on some aspects of its investigation in terms of both its scope and its timing. The decision to prosecute was taken by the Army Prosecuting Authority based upon the evidence gathered by the Royal Military Police. The Army Prosecuting Authority acts as prosecutor in all courts martial and has a similar role to that of the Crown Prosecution Service in
7 Nov 2005 : Column 409
civilian courts. The APA is statutorily independent of the Army chain of command, which has no influence over its case management or decision-making process. The decision to prosecute is based on its assessment of the evidence and of the realistic prospects of a conviction, as stated on Thursday by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
"Everyone is presumed innocent, unless and until they are found guilty. The four servicemen and three ex-servicemen were provided with every assistance to enable them to put their case. A unit defending officer was provided for each of them and acted as their link with their defence team. They were each defended by a QC, funded by the Army Criminal Legal Aid Authority, and they were all afforded full welfare provision throughout the period up to and including the trial. This continues.
"As the Judge Advocate General made clear, he had no criticism of the Army Prosecuting Authority in bringing the case to trial. This court-martial demonstrates the Army's commitment to transparency and accountability. It was held in open court, open to full public scrutiny, and to the same standards of justice and independence that are present in the civilian justice system. All the parties and authorities involved, military and civilian, acted properly and in good faith.
"The British Army is not complacent. Following all operational commitments, a process of continuous and determined professional review is undertaken. The comments of the judge advocate are being considered and a comprehensive review of the 3 Para trial is under way.
"In addition, the Army announced a review, following the trial earlier this year of members of 1 Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The review is being conducted on behalf of the Chief of the General Staff by a senior experienced officer and is looking at issues arising from concluded courts martial relating to deliberate acts of abuse. This review will seek to learn lessons and look at wider issues emerging from trials and other reports in order to safeguard and improve the Army's operational effectiveness. Any findings can be published only after all the courts martial have concluded. This is therefore likely to be some time in the future.
"This case has shown our determination to ensure that justice is done, irrespective of the difficulties. We are very sensitive to the ordeal that these soldiers have been through. They have acted with dignity throughout and I hope that they will now be given respect and privacy to enable them to continue with their lives.
"More than 80,000 service men and women have served in Iraq. Only a very small number have been accused of ill treatment of Iraqi civilians, and a number of those have already been cleared of any wrongdoing—as in this case. Our troops in Iraq continue to perform outstandingly but they are not above the law".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7 Nov 2005 : Column 410
3.59 pm
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. That cannot have been easy for the noble Lord as many aspects of this affair do not fall directly within his remit. I see that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is in his place. We would have expected him to repeat the Statement.
I start by paying tribute to our Armed Forces. As the Minister said, they operate to the very highest standard. While we sit in the comfort of this Chamber we should not forget that nearly 100 servicemen have given their lives in Iraq.
We asked for this urgent question today because we believe that the wide publicity given to the, doubtless well intentioned, prosecutions of members of the Armed Forces has caused serious damage. This case will have been watched with mounting concern by British troops in Iraq. Morale has been seriously undermined.
This is not the moment to go into the details of the case but I should like to know who decided that the prosecutions should take place, who decided that those witnesses should come over, and who evaluated their clearly unreliable evidence. One of the soldiers' defence barristers said that he was,
Is that true? It would be unacceptable if political priorities were put ahead of the interests of natural justice.
Is the MoD fulfilling its duty of care? It appears that soldiers and their families are left uncertain about whether they may face prosecution. There are reports that the Secretary of State has ordered an "action plan" to address the problem. Can the Minister clarify what the terms of reference will be? Is it the same review that the Minister mentioned in the Statement? When will it report?
We do not, of course, condone wrongdoing by our troops. As the Minister said, soldiers are not above the law. However, the Government need to recognise that the apparent current policy of prosecuting so many members of our Armed Forces is completely unsustainable. I do not recall so many prosecutions during the equally difficult operation in the first Gulf War. Can the Minister throw any light on the reasons for that? Can he also confirm that the Government will now take a serious look at other outstanding cases to avoid further waste of taxpayers' money?
Five 2nd Royal Tank Regiment soldiers are still being investigated by the CPS, two and a half years after the event in Iraq, leaving them poorly informed and uncertain whether they will face charges and appear in a civilian court. Her Majesty's Government must accept that those cases will have lasting effects on the recruitment and retention of our Armed Forces. It is very clear to me from talking to a lot of soldiers that they now feel seriously inhibited in what they do in Iraq. They feel that they can no longer rely on the word of their commanding officer. The battlefield is not a
7 Nov 2005 : Column 411
court of law. Can the Minister therefore reinforce to the House today the authority of the chain of command?
4.3 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |