header-logo header-logo

Parliament gets tough on Overseas Operations Bill

21 April 2021
Issue: 7929 / Categories: Legal News , Military , Criminal , International justice
printer mail-detail
MPs and peers went into battle this week over the government’s controversial Bill to limit soldiers’ accountability for war crimes.

The Lords made extensive amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, including removing a six-year time limit for civil claims against the Ministry of Defence (MoD); excluding war crimes and genocide from the presumption against prosecution; and adding a clause to impose a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence for veterans and service personnel involved in investigations and litigation relating to overseas operations.

The bill returned to the House of Commons this week, with the government expected to mount a staunch defence.

Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen has called on MPs to ‘drop the bill altogether’.

A YouGov Direct poll commissioned by the Law Society, and published this week, found the public overwhelmingly (96%) backs the British military being held to the same (71%) or higher (25%) legal standards as the average citizen. 94% of people said they think it is important the UK is seen as a country which upholds the law.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘The UK is obliged by international law to investigate and prosecute well-evidenced serious offences committed during overseas operations.

‘No other serious crime, let alone crimes against humanity or torture, has a limitation period and no exception should be introduced. If the UK is seen to set itself outside internationally agreed standards, it risks fuelling a culture of impunity, undermining its global standing, its ability to hold other states to account and longstanding international cooperation practices.’

Boyce said the proposal to put a time limit on compensation claims against the MoD could prevent Armed Forces personnel, other MoD employees and civilians getting compensation for injuries and medical conditions caused by military activities. She said: ‘We believe this would be a gross injustice both to those who have dedicated their lives to their country and to innocent victims.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll