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

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll