UK Parliament / Open data

Armed Forces Bill

Proceeding contribution from Julian Brazier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 22 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Armed Forces Bill.
I will give the Committee an example now. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman who, as a member of the Defence Committee, takes a close interest in the armed forces. I would like to be able to cite the full circumstances of the case, but I am not in a position to do so. Although several hon. Members might choose not to do so, the Committee will have to take my word that I am talking about a real case. A serving officer has given me the background facts about it, but I will have to describe it in fairly general terms because the individual victim does not want to be identified. The case involved a soldier who had allegations brought against him in Iraq of a serious sexual assault on a female. His immediate officer and, subsequently, commanding officer examined the allegations. The allegations were supported by witness statements that were so grossly contradictory that it was absolutely inconceivable that the Crown Prosecution Service in this country would have taken them seriously. We should remember that only a tiny proportion of even rape allegations—the allegations were of not a rape, but a nasty sexual attack—come to court in this country. The commanding officer took the view that the allegations were clearly malicious and that it was impossible to reconcile the contradictory stories. We should remember that the case took place against the background of Field Marshall Lord Inge’s comments that British lawyers in Iraq are actively hawking for business and reminding Iraqis that they can get money if they can bring such cases. The commanding officer was told that if he dismissed the case, another route would be found, as happened in the Trooper Williams case, and that that would merely create much more serious difficulties further down the line. The case took more than a year to come to court martial. In the process, the soldier’s life fell apart, as did his marriage. We should be very worried that Field Marshall Inge, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, is saying that British lawyers in Iraq are actively hawking the fact that there is money available for Iraqi citizens who can bring successful cases against British soldiers. Our armed forces are under colossal pressure. We hear from week to week and month to month about members of the armed forces being killed and desperately seriously wounded. We hear of people having mental breakdowns and mental health problems, too. Those people are under colossal strain as they face a ruthless and largely invisible terrorist enemy. Effectively, we are providing a Trojan horse for an organised and extremely well-briefed enemy by removing the legal safeguard."In Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot tried not to keep the full safeguard, but simply to put a much more modest one in its place. He won support for his amendment from Liberal Democrats and one Labour Member. There was a dead heat when there was a Division in the Committee on the matter. We cannot reopen the debate by means of an amendment today, but I hope that hon. Members will vote against the clause so that the other place may revisit the matter."
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c1255-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top