header-logo header-logo

14 March 2012
Issue: 7505 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Peacekeeping?

HLE blogger Guy Skelton examines the issues surrounding conscientious objection in the armed forces

"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

Issue: 7505 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Firm adds former Simmons Simmons patent head to engineering and tech team

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

Freeths strengthens its voice in national disputes with ACTAPS committee appointment

Pillsbury—Matthew Sperry

Pillsbury—Matthew Sperry

Pillsbury expands private client and family office platform with Cadwalader partner hire

NEWS
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Non-court dispute resolution is no longer an alternative in family law—it is rapidly becoming the norm
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
back-to-top-scroll