Falkland Islands: War Crimes Inquiry (Hansard, 6 December 1993)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
My Lords, in August 1992 the Secretary of State for Defence referred the allegations to the Crown Prosecution Service, which asked the Metropolitan Police to undertake an investigation, which is in progress. The extent and nature of that investigation are operational matters for the commissioner in which Ministers cannot intervene. As soon as the investigation is completed the police will submit a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will than decide whether any action needs to be taken.

§ Lord Buxton of Alsa
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. I apologise for being inattentive at the start. In asking him a further question perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that it is nine months since I raised this matter in your Lordships' House, when all noble Lords thought that it should be dealt with as quickly as possible in order to avoid embarrassment or humiliation.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that evidence taken by the police in Argentina from members of the defeated armed services must on any the country concerned is the United Kingdom, France, Ecuador, or any other country: it is beyond credence that evidence from defeated armed services will not be biased and therefore suspect. Therefore, is it not now impossible to bring charges against any member of our own valiant and heroic task force since the public will never believe that the evidence on which charges are based is not suspect or biased? Is it not time for the Government to intervene, as I am sure any other government in the would would, in order to avoid our sinking further into this ever-worsening quicksand which must result in some embarrassment or humiliation to somebody?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as I said, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered the matter and it was thought right that the Metropolitan Police should be invited to inquire into the allegations. That is what is happening. It would be premature to make any decision upon the matter until the report on those investigations is complete and is submitted to the director. Obviously the source of any evidence which the report discloses will be relevant in considering what 740 is to be done in the light of the report. However, that is a matter to be considered at the appropriate time. I am certainly not in a position to offer any comment upon it now.
Regarding time, if they are to be thorough such investigations necessarily require some time. I have no reason to believe that the Metropolitan Police have taken longer over the inquiry than circumstances would justify.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm that the allegations being investigated are based on a book? Will he further confirm that the allegations of war crimes refer to incidents which occurred on the battlefield in the heat of battle? Can he let me and the House know whether a similar inquiry is being made in Argentina in response to allegations that Argentinian soldiers engaged in similar war crimes? Finally, is it not a disgrace that British soldiers should be placed in this position at this time?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it is extremely important for the proper safeguard of any fighting forces that in the event of members of those forces being captured they are treated properly. The Geneva conventions to which we are party are intended to make those obligations plain. The allegations which are being investigated are such that in the view of the Crown Prosecution Service they require investigation. I cannot say whether they concern matters that should be regarded as occurring in the heat of battle. Obviously that is a circumstance which must be taken into account. I have read reports about investigations by the Argentinians. I am not in a position to say what is occurring in that connection at present.

§ Lord Rawlinson of Ewell
My Lords, will it not ultimately be a matter for the Attorney-General in his semi-judicial role rather than as a member of the Government, to decide whether a prosecution should be launched, taking into account all matters such as the public interest?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, my noble and learned friend is perfectly correct. The ultimate decision is one taken under the superintendence of the Attorney-General. The report has been called for by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be made to the director.
I should like to emphasise, as my noble and learned friend has done, that it is a matter for those with a responsibility for prosecution. It is not a matter for government as a whole. In giving the reply that I have given, I speak in this Chamber on behalf of the Attorney-General.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a noble purpose in sending the task force to the Falkland Islands was to maintain the rule of law? Is it not therefore more appropriate to follow the course indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, in order to indicate that in this country at least we follow the rule of law, whether convenient or uncomfortable?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the purpose of sending the original task force was to maintain the rule of international law. I am sure that we are all thankful that that enterprise was so successful. It is essential that we as a country should maintain the rule of law in all circumstances. The inquiry is being pursued under that policy with a view to an appropriate decision being taken in the light of the full circumstances disclosed by the inquiry about whether or not any further proceedings are required.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, perhaps I may ask this question of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. When is it expected that a decision will be made on whether or not to charge any of those men with murder; and by whom will that decision be made?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the decision will be taken following the receipt of the report. I am not in a position to say at this moment precisely when that report will be completed. A decision will be taken by the prosecuting authorities; that is to say, the Director of Public Prosecutions under the superintendence of the Attorney-General.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, why is the issue a matter for the Metropolitan Police and the Attorney-General? By tradition, usually acts committed on active service are dealt with by the services themselves and come under the Advocate-General's Department; or has everything changed nowadays?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, everything has not changed. However, this matter was referred by the Ministry of Defence to the Crown Prosecution Service. That service invited the Metropolitan Police to make the inquiries. That may have a bearing on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as to the precise nature of the allegations in question. However, that is the course of events that has taken place. I believe that to be appropriate in the circumstances of this specific case.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, since this is a military matter, will not the Judge Advocate General be consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, in taking appropriate decisions, I am sure that the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General will consult all whom they believe to have a proper role in tendering advice in the circumstances of this matter.