Peacekeeping?

"After the end of national service in the early 1960s, the creation of a volunteer armed forces led to the issue of conscientious objection in Britain being largely relegated to the annals of history. However, a freedom of information request by The Independent revealed that since 1999 there have been 21 applications from members of the armed forces for discharge on the grounds of conscientious objection (“Conscientious objectors figures revealed”, 30 January 2011).

The case of R v Lyons [2011] EWCA Crim 2808, [2011] All ER (D) 16 (Dec) highlights the difficulties volunteer armed forces face in relation to conscientious objection.

After serving five years in the Royal Navy, and having reached the rank of leading medical assistant, Michael Lyons received an order that he was to be deployed to Afghanistan on 1 April 2011. Around the time of receiving the order, Lyons had begun to read articles and reports in the media about the war in Afghanistan (including matters exposed by the Wikileaks website). From the literature he read, Lyons formed the opinion that the UK’s involvement was wrong and that it would be morally wrong for him to be involved in such military intervention. He therefore applied for discharge on the ground that he was a conscientious objector. Lyons followed the procedure for conscientious objection in force at the time (it has since been altered) as set out in Personnel, Legal, Administrative and General Orders 0801. Paragraph one provided: “Any RN/RM officer or rating/other rank who claims to have developed a genuine conscientious objection to further service may apply for premature discharge without regard to length service or the manpower situation in the branch.”

The application was refused and he appealed to the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors (ACCO). Both the ACCO hearing and subsequent court martial raise a number of interesting points in relation to the interplay between conscientious objection and an individual’s European Convention on Human Rights Art 9 right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk