16th December 2022
Sometimes legal things do not always end badly.
Two years ago, in 2020, I did a video for the Financial Times on how the United Kingdom government was then making it more difficult for former United Kingdom service personnel to be prosecuted for war crimes.
The government was in 2020-21 using a Bill to make it more difficult for any historic civil or criminal legal action to be brought against former service personnel and – for some reason – torture and war crimes would be among those offences that would be made more difficult to prosecute.
Whatever that reason was, it was not a good reason.
There are certain offences so grave that there should not be formal or effective immunity for those who commit those crimes.
And this was not about battlefield or front line operations, but about the treatment of civilians or captives.
*
Many – including serving and former military personnel – were deeply unhappy with this proposed immunity.
And the fine people at Freedom from Torture and at other campaign groups put together an impressive and persuasive campaign against the proposed legislation:
The pressure mounted, and the Bill’s progress through Parliament was getting trickier.
And then, in April 2021, the government capitulated:
And so the Bill passed into law with the following exemptions:
*
Two years later, as this blog set out yesterday, a full statutory inquiry has now been announced into illegal actions by service personnel in Afghanistan,
For such an inquiry to be announced there must be some significant prima facie evidence which has come to light, even if that evidence is not conclusive about any wrongdoing.
Yet just two years ago, the United Kingdom government was anxiously seeking to legislate so as to make it far more practically difficult for any historic war crimes to be prosecuted.
Thanks to the campaigners at Freedom from Torture and elsewhere, that legislative proposal was checked.
As the post on this blog also averred yesterday, it is difficult – legally, politically, culturally – for our armed services (and security services and police services) to ever be held to account for possible wrongdoing.
And the fact that there is sufficient information now available to trigger a full statutory inquiry (and this can be said without prejudice to that inquiry’s conclusions) means that those who campaigned against the exemption for war crimes were entirely right to do so.
***
These law and policy posts are also crossposted on my new “law and lore” Substack – and I would be grateful if you can click and subscribe (for free) at my Substack, which will soon have exclusive content.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
One of the minority of crass, hostile comments under the Youtube video says that “only lawyers care about this”. Who else, though, would have spotted the tremendous implications of what appeared in print simply as “(g)”?