header-logo header-logo

21 April 2021
Issue: 7929 / Categories: Legal News , Military , Criminal , International justice
printer mail-detail

Parliament gets tough on Overseas Operations Bill

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll