§ Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ When a decision will be taken whether or not to prosecute any of those who served in the Armed Forces in the Falklands as a result of the investigations instituted by the Secretary of State for Defence.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)My Lords, the Director of Public Prosecutions has today announced that she has concluded her consideration of the inquiries carried out by the Metropolitan Police into allegations that criminal offences had been committed by members of the Parachute Regiment during their operations in the Falklands Islands in 1982.
Her consideration was assisted by advice from First Senior Treasury Counsel. She has concluded that the evidence is not such as to afford a realistic prospect of conviction of any person for any criminal offence and has therefore decided that no criminal proceedings should be instituted.
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, the Law Officers, whom she consulted and who separately considered the case, agree with this conclusion.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with a sense of heartfelt relief and gratitude for the statement that he has made. I also thank all Members of your Lordships' House on all sides for their sterling and steady support in this rather sad affair.
Will it be possible in future to adhere to the tradition that if our men on active service are to be charged with murder of enemy forces the matter might remain within the remit of the Judge Advocate General and not the civil prosecuting authority?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, the question of whether the matter can be within the remit of the Judge Advocate General depends on the circumstances of the individual at the time of the investigation. As I said to your Lordships earlier, I understand that the Judge Advocate General did not consider that it was appropriate that he should be consulted at any stage in this matter. It was a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions in the circumstances of the case and I believe that the correct procedure has been followed in this difficult matter, with the result that I have intimated to your Lordships today.
§ Lord Irvine of LairgMy Lords, is not the position that the Metropolitan Police report was delivered to the Crown Prosecution Service three-and-a-half months ago, that the director considered it fully and with anxious care, that she would have consulted with the Attorney-General and taken the advice of Treasury Counsel, and has reached a wise and considered conclusion which gives pleasure to the House?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I am grateful. It is worth saying that in this investigation there were allegations other than those contained in the book: to which reference was made earlier during the course of these matters. Statements have been taken from more than 400 witnesses and the documentation that was produced as a result was extremely considerable. The amount of work that had to be done after the report was received was voluminous and important and it required a degree of deliberation that it has now been able to obtain. I am grateful for the remarks made about the nature of the decision and the process by which it was reached.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, is it not a great relief to all of us and may we not express the hope that other countries will follow our example in applying the rule of law in the most extreme circumstances?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that observation. It is always difficult to undertake an investigation of this kind, in particular when it becomes a matter of public record. On an earlier occasion the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said— and I thoroughly agree with him—that we must be seen to carry out our international obligations in this matter and, when we do so, do it thoroughly and well. That is what has happened here and I believe that this is a good example for others to follow in similar situations.