Armed Forces Bill

I am quoting directly from the Judge Advocate General, who said that there might be"““sufficient evidence . . . for a court martial board to conclude that Nadhem Abdullah died as a result of an assault carried out by””" the section, but that there was no evidence in relation to any individual defendant, so clearly the case should not have been brought. The point that the Judge Advocate General was making was that there were serious omissions in the investigation, such as the failure to search hospital records or take DNA swabs, the fact that defendants and witnesses were not interviewed and cautioned until six months after the incident, and that the clothing of the victim should have been seized much earlier. Indeed, he reiterated that general point in evidence before the Constitutional Affairs Committee, saying that there were serious concerns in the Army prosecuting authority about the quality of the investigation. I know that the Under-Secretary of State has said that the intention is to have closer liaison with and closer early involvement by the prosecuting authority in the investigation, as is the practice with the Crown Prosecution Service, which is now present in most police stations. It would be interesting to hear what specific proposals he can present to improve the quality of investigations, which has been such a problem in many cases. Many hon. Members have mentioned the length of cases—they take too long to come before a court martial. Simple cases take months and some take more than a year from offence to trial. In the case of Baha Mousa it took, I think, 22 months before anyone was charged with the offence. It would be interesting to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say, as I understand that some of the proposals are intended to expedite cases. There could be a problem with resources—a matter that the hon. Gentleman has touched on in comments outside the House. The subject of the independence of investigations has been touched on by several hon. Members. There is still some confusion in my mind about the role and jurisdiction of the civilian authorities in relation to serious offences such as rape, murder and manslaughter committed within the United Kingdom. I understand that the Secretary of State said earlier that there had been no change, and that there was already concurrent jurisdiction between the civilian and military authorities. In his evidence to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Judge Advocate General said that under current law, offences of murder, manslaughter and rape committed in the UK were dealt with by the civilian court, and the court martial did not have jurisdiction, although he was of the opinion that that would change as a result of these proposals. I would be grateful if the Under Secretary clarified that matter. As a general principle, there is a need for clear and unambiguous civilian control of the investigations of suspicious deaths within the UK. Indeed the High Court recently made that point in the case of Kathleen Thompson, criticising the Army’s decision to delegate to the Royal Military Police in that case. Of course, a broader point is made by the Deepcut families and the Surrey police, who have reiterated the need for an external review of the investigations, and by the Defence Committee, in its call for an independent military complaints commission. As we have heard, we have seen the setting up of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Last year, the independent prisons ombudsman was introduced, so that it is no longer the Prison Service that investigates deaths in custody. In order to achieve public confidence and effective public scrutiny, we have an independent process in all those areas in which the state has a particular monopoly.