Falklands War Crimes Investigation (Hansard, 3 May 1994)

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the Director of Public Prosecutions has now received a report by the Metropolitan Police relating to its investigations. The possible offences to be considered are not the subject of any statutory requirement for the consent of a Law Officer. Any decision will be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in consultation with the Attorney-General under whose superintendence she acts.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that the issue raises matters of grave and vital public policy, including the ability of our forces to fight future wars and battles? Therefore the Attorney-General should be involved in any decision to prosecute.
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that many people believe that it is an insult to the memory of all those who died on Mount Longdon that their comrades in arms who are still living are in danger of being prosecuted for war crimes in the British courts—with their former enemies, no doubt with all expenses paid, giving evidence against them in British courts—while the real perpetrators of the war, the fascist junta of Galtieri, remain free and are probably laughing their heads off at the behaviour of the British Government?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, on the first point that the noble Lord raises, as I have said, the Director of Public Prosecutions will take the decisions which are required of her in consultation with the Attorney-General under whose superintendence she acts. In view of what I have answered, there is no doubt that the first part of his supplementary question should be answered in the affirmative.
With regard to the second part of his question, I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House shares the sentiments that the noble Lord expressed with respect to the fascist junta. On the other hand, this country has international obligations under the Geneva Convention with which we must comply. The purpose of the investigation is to make sure that we are complying with those obligations. Such an investigation is by no means to be considered as an adverse reflection on our armed forces. I would suggest to your Lordships that we ought to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions to come to a wise decision in the light of the information with which she has been provided.

§ Lord Bramall
My Lords, I am sure that the House will look to the right honourable and learned gentleman 1007 the Attorney-General to put the whole unfortunate investigation into proper perspective. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the Government owed it to the armed forces—who, at their behest, went 8,000 miles to fight with great gallantry and overall discipline and decency—to have cleared up the whole matter a long time ago?
Finally, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, if any benefit of the doubt is to be given over any of the alleged incidents—as there is bound to be, taking into account the lapse of 12 years and the circumstances of intense battle prevailing at the time—that benefit should be accorded to those who risked their lives in the national interest?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord well knows, the evidential burden in our criminal courts gives the full benefit of the doubt to any person accused. I am absolutely certain that, in considering the matter, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General will have it very much in their minds.
As regards the first part of the noble and gallant Lord's supplementary question, I am sure that all noble Lords, and certainly I on behalf of the Government, share his sentiments with regard to the gallantry and bravery of those who went 8,000 miles to the Falklands in difficult circumstances. I am sure that we all fully appreciate everything that they did. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the investigation carries no reflection whatever on our debt to our armed forces for their tremendous work on that great occasion.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say why the matter has been allowed to drag on for so long? Can he give the House some assurance that it will be brought to a conclusion quickly and that the anxiety which it is causing among individuals in the armed forces will be brought to an end?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as has already been indicated, these are matters of some complexity and the events with which they are connected occurred a long time ago. My understanding is that the police report was delivered to the Crown Prosecution Service on 29th March this year. It is a complicated document. However, I have no doubt that a decision will be reached as soon as possible, having regard to the necessity to give proper consideration to all aspects of the matter.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is particularly unhelpful of the Argentine Government to have launched an investigation of their own into the matter? Will he tell us what has happened to that investigation?
Further, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, although it is right that proper legal procedures should be observed, on the evidence available the investigation should never have been started in the first place?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I do not think that it would be right for me to offer any comment on the last matter raised by the noble Lord. The Director of Public 1008 Prosecutions is at present considering a detailed report. The House has already heard from me how it came about that the police were involved.
My understanding from the press reports is that a commission of inquiry was set up in Argentina. Exactly what transpired in that connection I am not certain, except that it appears from the press reports that the inquiry has now been completed.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, why was the matter given to the Metropolitan Police to deal with? Why was it not dealt with in the traditional way whereby matters of that kind arising out of active service are dealt with by the Judge Advocate General, probably leading to a court of inquiry? To give it to the Metropolitan Police seems to be an unfair burden on them, as they are not equipped to deal with that kind of matter. It is not fair on them; nor is it fair on the servicemen who deserve better than that of their country.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, my understanding is that it would not have been appropriate for the Judge Advocate General to be involved in the matter. He has advised me that that is his view. This is a question of an investigation which was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions by the Ministry of Defence and the investigation followed from that. The Metropolitan Police were invited, on behalf of the director, to undertake the investigation. I have no doubt that all the circumstances to which the noble Lord referred will properly be taken into account in reaching a proper decision on the report.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that some of his replies are less than satisfactory? On 6th December he informed the House that the decision as to whether to prosecute would be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions, under the superintendence of the Attorney-General".—[Official Report, 6/12/93; col. 740.] Does that mean, or does it not, that the assent of the Attorney-General must be secured under the War Crimes Act before any prosecution is launched?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I hope that it is not remarkable that what I said today appears to correspond pretty closely to what I said on the previous occasion. Under the War Crimes Act 1991, the consent of the Attorney-General is required. Under any possible offence that might arise from this inquiry, as I said in my original Answer, the offences are not subject to any statutory requirement for the consent of a law officer. But because the Director of Public Prosecutions acts under the superintendence of the Attorney-General, her decision will be taken in consultation with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, it is perfectly true and correct, that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, it would not be proper for him to intervene with the Director of Public Prosecutions in her consideration of the matter. However, he can be in no doubt of the general feeling expressed in most quarters of the House as to what the House thinks of the prosecution. Will the noble and learned Lord undertake 1009 to draw the attention of the director to the exchanges that have taken place today in the House and make it perfectly clear to her that this House at least wishes the matter to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible?

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, in answering these questions, I am speaking on behalf of the prosecuting authorities. Certainly, the Director of Public Prosecutions pays the closest attention both to my answers and to your Lordships' questions in these exchanges. Therefore, she will be in no doubt as to your Lordships' views on the matter. I am sure that noble Lords would like her to reach her decision on the evidence which has been put before her, in accordance with the relevant law.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)
My Lords, I think that we should have two more questions and then we ought to move on.

Noble Lords
Move on!

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I think we ought to move on.