Key Facts

• Amendment proposed by Mr Kevan Jones.
• Date of the amendment: 14 October.
• Clause and page number: Clause 3, page 2, line 20.
• Amendments aim to give weight to maintaining public trust in criminal justice and upholding military accountability.
• Specific amendments add references to genocide, crimes against humanity, and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
• Amendment 12 requires independent reviews confirming compliance with international treaty obligations before regulations can be made.
• Judge Blackett and General Nick Parker testified about the missing scope of investigation in the Bill.
• Major Campbell's case illustrates issues with reinvestigation despite previous investigations being deemed complete.
• Clause 4 defines 'relevant previous investigation' but lacks clarity on who decides what is new evidence.
• The statement denies that Major Bob Campbell wants all cases to go directly to the International Criminal Court.
• Clause 4 defines 'relevant previous investigation' as one conducted by an investigating authority or concluded without charges.
• Subsection (2) of clause 4 outlines 'new evidence' as information not previously considered in a relevant previous investigation.
• Amendments 10, 11, and 24 aim to replace 'Attorney General' with 'Director of Public Prosecutions' or 'Lord Advocate'.
• The Attorney General is described as a political appointment.
• Stringer argues for independent oversight in the decision-making process.
• The Crown Prosecution Service was established to separate police investigation and prosecution decisions.
• Major Campbell welcomes the Bill but expresses concern over the Attorney General’s role in prosecutions.
• Kenya has made its Attorney General politically independent to ensure judicial oversight.
• Amendment 24 asks the Attorney General to report her reasoning on prosecution decisions to Parliament.
• Legal experts and former Attorneys General have raised concerns about politicising judicial processes in the Bill.
• Dominic Grieve, a former Attorney General, criticised the Bill for adding unnecessary political elements to judicial safeguards.
• Sir Malcolm Rifkind warned the Bill could put soldiers at greater risk by being seen as reluctant to act in accordance with long-established international law.
• Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer stated that the Bill undermines international humanitarian law while shielding the government.
• Judge Blackett raised concerns about the Attorney General's role in consenting to prosecutions under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.
• Chris Evans raises a concern about an anomaly in the Bill related to civil cases being struck out after six years but potentially re-examined under criminal prosecution.
• Kevan Jones questions whether the legal thresholds for decision-making by the Attorney General will be transparently reported.
• Johnny Mercer defends his position against criticism, emphasizing the need for a voice that understands the experiences of those serving on operations.
• Clause 5 requires consent from the Attorney General before prosecution can proceed.
• The Labour party introduced legislation requiring the consent of the Attorney General for prosecuting veterans more than six months after leaving service, in 2001.
• Amendment 24 seeks to require the Attorney General to report to Parliament with reasons for granting or withholding consent.
• Graham Stringer (Labour) addresses procedural concerns during the debate.
• He mentions the need for members to use interventions rather than speeches to maintain order.
• New clause 2 amends Part 2 of the Bill to exclude actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from limitations on courts' discretion.
• New clause 2 would amend part 2 of the Bill to exclude actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from limitations.
• A witness from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers stated that the impact assessment ignores noise-induced hearing loss claims, which number 1,810 in the last year alone.
• A marine received £500,000 for noise-induced hearing loss caused by negligent exposure to noise during service, but under the Bill's time limits, aspects of his claim would have been eliminated.
• The Limitation Act 1980 sets a six-year longstop for legal claims.
• Section 33 of the Limitation Act allows for exceptions in certain circumstances.
• Snatch Land Rover cases and paint exposure cases are cited as examples where delayed evidence affected legal rights.
• The MP worked on asbestos cases where diagnoses were only made at death certificates.
• Submariners who worked in submarines with asbestos would be time-barred under the Bill.
• Hilary Meredith testified that part 2 should be scrapped as it creates difficulties for latent disease cases.
• Cases brought under the Human Rights Act can be crucial protections for servicemen and women.
• The Human Rights Act 1998 preserves combat immunity.
• The Snatch Land Rover case involved families questioning procurement decisions rather than battlefield commands.
• Royal British Legion (RBL) has concerns about the Bill's impact on servicemen and women.
• Asbestos cases opened up justice for thousands of people injured, including service personnel.