UK Parliament / Open data

Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

If the noble Lord will allow me, this is probably repeating something that I said earlier. In some ways, it meets the point that the noble Lord is making. Currently, members of the Armed Forces give some indication of why they are arresting an individual. They say why they are doing it. We believe that a statutory obligation would provide a route for challenging an action by the Armed Forces. I am about to take advice on this but I am assuming that, while the training is not equivalent to that given to a police officer, anyone making such an arrest and saying something would have gone through some process. We will look at guidance being given to the military as an option but I cannot guarantee anything. Clearly, the forces are trained in this matter but not to the extent that police officers are. Something may be written down concerning what should be said but I do not know and we will check on that. I am a non-lawyer but I know lawyers and I suspect that the military would be told, ““Say the minimum possible consistent with the circumstances because there’s no need to say any more. A police officer is going to come and carry out the arrest or the release””. We will certainly check what guidance or training, if any, is given to the military and what words are used, but I believe that at the point of arrest they would ordinarily say the words that I have just given and would indicate why they were arresting the individual. We believe that putting that on a statutory footing in the Bill would open up all kinds of difficulties in a fast-moving situation—the context is Northern Ireland and subsection (1)—but we will look at that.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

690 c224-5GC 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top