Key Facts

• Five years was chosen as a compromise after ten years was originally proposed.
• There is no magic number in law; five years is a matter of policy choice.
• The Attorney General's decision not to prosecute could be challenged in court.
• The Bill establishes a presumption against prosecution but does not prevent investigations or prosecutions if new evidence arises.
• Professor Ekins notes that such legislative framing is unusual in the UK.
• There are concerns about Human Rights Act challenges potentially limiting the Attorney General's discretion.
• The Bill aims to protect service personnel from outdated allegations brought after significant delays.
• It does not cover promptly brought spurious claims within six years for tort actions or five years for criminal prosecutions.
• Professor Ekins suggests limiting the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act to address difficulties faced by UK forces.
• The extension of European convention on human rights into military operations led to the erosion of combat immunity.
• The Ministry of Defence consultation paper proposed restating combat immunity and implementing no-fault compensation but later said it was not being taken forward.
• Dr Morgan suggests that full compensation should be available within the armed forces compensation scheme without the need for tort claims or negligence actions against the Government.
• Professor Ekins discusses the limitations of the Human Rights Act in dealing with historical allegations and investigations.
• Dr Morgan suggests that Parliament could amend the Human Rights Act to specify it does not apply extraterritorially.
• The Al-Skeini case is mentioned as extending the extraterritorial reach of the European convention.
• Dr Morgan and Professor Ekins discuss the possibility of UK veterans facing prosecution before the International Criminal Court if serious war crimes or crimes against humanity allegations arise more than five years after the event.
• Major Bob Campbell provided evidence following multiple investigations, leading to concerns about repeated scrutiny for veterans under the proposed Bill.
• The risk is deemed modest by some experts but increased due to the unique five-year time limitation specified in the Bill.
• The Bill applies to actions taken in the past, except for ongoing legal proceedings initiated before its enactment.
• Clause 15(6) ensures that provisions of Part 1 do not apply to proceedings instituted before the day the bill comes into force.
• A potential Division could interrupt the session and may require a pragmatic approach if Members cannot return within 15 minutes.
• APIL believes the Bill strips service personnel and veterans of certain rights in relation to civil claims.
• Emma Norton highlights that original investigations into allegations of harm were problematic, leading to repeated reinvestigations and litigation.
• There is a suggestion to explore a more consultative approach before moving forward with legislative changes.
• The Bill may increase the risk that matters would be taken up by the ICC.
• Senior members of the armed forces are concerned about the provisions in the Bill.
• There is a lack of awareness among troops regarding their legal rights to bring civil claims for injuries.
• Troops are often misinformed and told to wait until the end of service before bringing a claim, leading to out-of-time applications.
• Service personnel are unique legal creatures compared to civilians, with limited rights in employment tribunals.
• The Bill would limit service personnel's access to section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 for civil claims beyond a six-year longstop.
• In the last year, over 1,810 noise-induced hearing loss claims were brought against the MOD.
• Courts can strike out stale or unreasonable claims.
• Section 33 of the Limitation Act enables courts to consider prejudice against defendants when deciding on time-barred claims.
• The Smith case established that combat immunity does not cover decisions made outside of theatre.
• The statement addresses the fear among veterans about the knock-on effect of changes to legislation.
• Part 2 of the Bill is seen as potentially benefiting the Ministry of Defence at the expense of veterans' rights.
• Examples are provided of how past litigation has led to improvements in equipment and practices within the MOD.
• The Bill may increase the challenge for service personnel in bringing claims against the MOD.
• Employer’s liability claims are a mainstay of civil claims brought against the MOD.
• Non-freezing cold injury and noise-induced hearing loss claims are common types of civil claims.
• Martha Spurrier from Liberty introduced herself as a lawyer and director of the human rights organisation.
• The Bill excludes sexual offences but should not exclude torture or war crimes.
• The 'triple lock' mechanism includes a five-year limit, increased powers for the Attorney General to block prosecutions, and factors to be taken into account that may discourage prosecution of serious crimes.
• The triple lock is seen as creating barriers to justice for victims of serious crimes.
• The Bill could increase the risk of UK service personnel being investigated by the International Criminal Court.
• Universal jurisdiction for international crimes like war crimes and torture may be affected by the Bill's provisions.
• Secondary legislation powers given to the Secretary of State could allow changes that impact serious international crimes without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
• David Mundell suspends the sitting for 15 minutes due to a Division in the House.
• The Bill's retrospective application is discussed as a concern by Clive Baldwin and Martha Spurrier, who argue against it on grounds of legal clarity and potential barriers to justice.
• Clive Baldwin warns the Bill could push the law of armed conflict to the limit.
• The UK has a poor record in prosecuting overseas crimes, with examples like torture practices recurring despite earlier condemnations.
• The Service Justice System review offers recommendations for improving investigations.
• The Overseas Operations Bill is criticized for failing to address timely and proper investigations.
• Clive Baldwin highlights that no one has been investigated under the principle of command responsibility since it was put into the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
• Martha Spurrier and Clive Baldwin advocate for a wholesale reform of the military criminal justice system in the next Armed Forces Act.
• Cases involving medical conditions can take years to develop.
• The Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to detain individuals abroad for over a decade.
• International standards require countries to provide effective remedies for torture allegations.
• Clause 12 seeks to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 to require the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Court of Human Rights.
• Derogation is part of human rights law but requires a state of emergency declaration.
• It does not exempt anyone from human rights law; it modifies it for emergencies.
• The oral evidence session is concluding.
• The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 11:30 AM on Thursday, October 8.