Context
Concerns raised about the adequacy of legal protections for veterans who served in Operation Banner, including risk of double jeopardy with no new evidence.
Question
During Operation Banner every single time a paramilitary was killed by a British soldier it was subject to judicial investigation. The Director of Public Prosecutions went through the evidence at the time, interviewed people, looked at planning documents and was able to talk to people contemporaneously while they could still remember it. It was not a rubber stamp; it was rigorous, as was proven by the fact that where necessary it led to prosecution. What is happening now is double jeopardy. Worse still, it is double jeopardy under new rules but with no new evidence indeed there is a risk of lost evidence and lost memory given the passage of time. I have heard what the Secretary of State has said but will he commit to ensuring that soldiers who were subject to reviews at the time will not be subject to further risk of prosecution under the Government’s replacement for the legacy Act?
Answer from The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Any incoming Government would have to repeal the legacy Act. It is unlawful legislation it has been rejected by domestic courts and rejected by communities across Northern Ireland, and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise. We owe it to those affected by the troubles including our armed forces communities and veterans to be honest about the unworkability of that legacy Act and to get this legislation right. That is exactly what the Northern Ireland Secretary and I are working together to ensure we can do, taking full account of all the interested parties in particular those veterans and armed forces communities that the right hon Gentleman speaks about.
Not addressed: Commitment regarding risk of further prosecution for soldiers subjected to reviews during Operation Banner not specifically addressed
How: Working Together, Unworkability Of Legacy Act
Was this summary accurate? Tell us
How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)