Iraq: UK Service Personnel Prosecutions (Hansard, 25 October 2004)

§ The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
My Lords, charges have been brought in five such cases—four courts martial and one criminal prosecution in the 1058 Crown Court. A further nine cases have been referred to the prosecuting authorities and are currently under consideration, making a total of 14. The Ministry of Defence advises me that 151 cases involving Iraqi citizens have been investigated and 84 of those investigations are ongoing. I emphasise that that last figure does not include any cases which do not involve Iraqi citizens.

§ Lord Holme of Cheltenham
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for that Answer. Can it be right, in what the Prime Minister has reaffirmed as the theatre of war, that courts martial are effectively being second-guessed so that accused soldiers face a double jeopardy of being re-charged by their prosecutors even if they are acquitted?
Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied that we are doing everything possible to help young soldiers, many of them territorials, to avoid firing misjudgments under pressure in a very threatening environment? Can he explain, for instance, why up to 2,300 territorials who failed their weapons tests in their rather cursory training in this country are now on active service in Iraq?
Is the Attorney-General confident that the rules of engagement are interpreted consistently and understandably by all instructors and commanders so that every soldier knows what is expected of him?
Finally, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that it would be unfair and very damaging to morale—in a war which itself is of questionable legality and where mass civilian casualties are caused by air strikes, yet go uncounted and are dismissed as collateral—if the assumptions grow that the whole weight of behaving well in conflict had to rest on the shoulders of understandably edgy young servicemen?

§ Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the noble Lord first asked whether soldiers were being put in double jeopardy, because he said that after being acquitted by a court martial they might be subject to a criminal trial. Let me put his mind absolutely at rest. There is no question of that. The doctrine of autre fois acquit, as it is known, applies. If a serviceman is acquitted by a court martial he will not stand trial again before a criminal court. A quite different situation arises where there has not been a trial in the court martial at all.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked me about the training of TA reservists. All mobilised reservists undergo pre-deployment training. That training, which is constantly reviewed, is carried out in accordance with extant directives issued by the chain of command.
So far as concerns the rules of engagement, they apply in exactly the same way in a court martial as in a criminal trial. For example, if the defence is self-defence, then it is the same defence in a court martial as it is in a criminal trial. Of course one has to have regard to all the circumstances, including the environment in which the offence is alleged to have taken place.
1059 Finally, the noble Lord will not be surprised that I take a complete difference of view from him over the legality of the war. That is well understood. It was the subject of an Answer from my noble friend Lady Symons only a few days ago. But it is not the case that the question of proper conduct is only on the shoulders of young soldiers. The fact is that over 65,000 servicemen and women have served in Iraq. It is absolutely plain that only a very few soldiers have been reported for offences and that the vast majority of those servicemen and women comply rigorously with the law and uphold it. All the more reason, noble Lords may think, in cases where the same standards appear not to have been maintained that they are rigorously investigated and properly prosecuted if appropriate to do so.

§ Lord Bramall
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the very deep concern which exists throughout the Army right to the very top about the way in which some of this is being handled, particularly the case of the young soldier in the Royal Tank Regiment charged in the civilian courts with the very serious charge of murder? Of course the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General cannot comment on that case, but could he say on what charge that soldier had earlier been arraigned before his commanding officer when on legal advice the case was dismissed?
Finally, as we are at war in Iraq—as we are told by the Prime Minister—100,000 rounds of ammunition having been fired in Basra alone, does the Attorney-General consider that our rules of engagement are sensible, consistent and robust enough to protect from prosecution on serious charges young soldiers who at least have been acting in good faith?

§ Lord Goldsmith
The noble and gallant Lord knows that, rightly, I cannot comment on a particular case. The points to which he refers will no doubt be ventilated before the criminal court, which will be able to adjudge them. As for rules of engagement, as I have already said, they apply. My noble friend made clear only a few days ago that they are robust and will apply in all the necessary circumstances. I add that we are very proud of the way in which our servicemen and women have acted. They are very well trained and able to deal with the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, does the Minister feel that this Question and his answers apply to the two soldiers who published the fake photographs?

§ Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I cannot say anything in this House about that case at the moment for legal reasons.

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, can the Attorney-General explain why he feels obliged to order further investigation by the civil authority when the services' prosecuting authority, having fully considered the case, has decided to dismiss it or not to proceed with it?

§ Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it is my responsibility to consider whether the rule of law is being upheld and to consider—I have jurisdiction to do so—whether or not there is evidence justifying a criminal prosecution. Where those are the facts, I will take that view. We believe strongly in the rule of law and if someone is alleged to have stepped beyond its bounds, it is right that there should be an investigation and, if appropriate, a prosecution at the end of it. I can say no more.

§ The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
My Lords, may I suggest to the House that we try to keep our questions a little shorter?