My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for Amendment 4, which stems from my view that I see the composition of the board of courts martial as much more to do with discipline and military things. Clearly with some of these very serious crimes, jurisdiction is very important. I am not clear how that could be clarified to make sure that things do not slip through the net because of it. However, the other aspect is perception. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, talked about public perceptions of courts martial. I think that there is also the perception of the military about the way in which they are put on trial. If we went down this route mitigation would have to be very clearly put, particularly when in what one might loosely call a war zone where there has been fighting and nation building, because the circumstances in which something like the Baha Mousa case happens are different from the normal civilian understanding. We would have to be absolutely certain that we were able to get that sort of proper mitigation into the civil court. However, I have great sympathy with Amendment 4, because some of these things should not generally be tried by court martial nowadays.
Armed Forces Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 1 March 2016.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Armed Forces Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
769 c61GC Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-10-12 15:18:14 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-03-01/16030220000090
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-03-01/16030220000090
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-03-01/16030220000090