Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence


Memorandum from the Deepcut & Beyond Group

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A DEEPCUT & BEYOND PUBLIC INQUIRY AND RELATED OBSERVATIONS

  To propose that is expedient1 that a Tribunal2 be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance3, that is to say the incidence4 of death and ill-treatment5 of members of HM Armed Forces6 in non-combat situations;7

    —  to investigate allegations and circumstances surrounding particular deaths at barracks8 in Deepcut and elsewhere, with specific reference to deaths at Catterick barracks9, in Northern Ireland10, and deaths Overseas11 12;

    —  to provide otherwise for an appropriate response and effective remedy13 on request for all those families14 of deceased service personnel maintaining a reasonable suspicion that the death could have been prevented or was not subject to an effective investigation;

    —  to inquire into the action and performance of all public and private bodies, authorities and persons involved15;

    —  to consider the issues arising, including the attribution or responsibility or blame where necessary;

    —  to consider how (a) to prevent such incidents in future, (b) to provide for the proper exercise of the Duty of Care; and (c) for the effective investigation of deaths of service personnel;

    —  to publish its findings as soon as practicable; to make such interim and final recommendations as may seem appropriate; and to lay its final report before both Houses of Parliament.

FOOTNOTES

1.  Expediency

  In evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration, Lord Justice Norton, proposed criteria for what might satisfy this condition, to paraphrase: that the problem to be addressed be clearly defined; that there were clear implications for public policy; that there was a sufficient level of public concern; that no alternative means of addressing the problem is available; that other avenues have been exhausted; that benefits of an Inquiry justify the cost. Deepcut & Beyond families believe their demand for an Inquiry satisfies each of those criteria.

2.  Public Inquiry

  Since the formation of the Deepcut & Beyond group, the families' demand has been for an Inquiry established under the Tribunal of Inquiries Act (1921) and this sentence is the standard form of wording for the establishment of this type of Inquiry. This position has been supported by 139 Members of Parliament who signed Early Day Motion 78[51]. We are aware that the Government intends to repeal this Act under the Inquiries Bill presently before Parliament.

  The Deepcut & Beyond families require an Inquiry that:

    (a)  is wholly independent of the military chain of command, the Ministry of Defence and the Government; and is led by a panel appointed in consultation with the families of the victims;

    (b)  has sufficient of powers to obtain documents and all other relevant evidence, to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses, to grant immunities and protect whistle-blowers; prosecute to establish responsibility and attribute blame where appropriate; to initiate legal action against those attempting to obstruct the Inquiry;

    (c)  has sufficient financial and material resources to carry out its terms of reference; to permit and fund legal representation of interested parties, particularly the victims; and otherwise to assist the full participation of victims and their families;

    (d)  is open and transparent; its hearings open to the public, press and media; and its report published and promoted in the public interest; and

    (e)  has the authority to make recommendations for reform and change that will be acted upon without delay by Government and other public authorities, particularly by HM Armed Forces.

(3)  Deliberately construed broadly

  In evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration, Lord Justice Laming, who conducted the Victoria Climbie Inquiry, stressed the importance of permitting the Chairman of an Inquiry to adopt a flexible approach to the Terms of Reference, particularly where responsibility may stretch beyond one government Department. If the breadth of terms of reference does not reflect the full spectrum of public concerns and extent of public interest, then confidence in the Inquiry, particularly among the victims and potential witnesses will be undermined from the outset. It is not in the interest of any party to establish a "stop-go" Inquiry that has to keep going back to Ministers for a change to the terms of reference.

4.  "Incidence"

  In public, the Army continues to underestimate the extent of the problem. Despite the controversy generated around these deaths, the Ministry of Defence has yet to provide any adequate statistical breakdown of information it holds on deaths in army barracks or elsewhere. An Inquiry would be remiss if it failed to demand full disclosure of such information prior to conducting its own "scoping" exercise. This would involve both an appeal to those with information that may be of interest to the Inquiry and the commissioning of independent surveys conducted among past and serving members of HM Forces.

5.  "Death and ill-treatment"

  This form of words would allow the Inquiry to examine those instances that might properly be construed as involving a failure to protect the right of life or to protect against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. These cases might include breaches in protection afforded by the Human Rights Act under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

6.  "All services"

  The overwhelming majority of deaths brought to the attention of the Deepcut & Beyond families' group concern Army personnel. There are, however, no grounds for the Inquiry to exclude in advance consideration of incidents that involve Navy, RAF or other service personnel. It is possible that additional instances of suspicious deaths may be brought to light by the Inquiry itself. In any case, the Inquiry may properly wish to investigate a limited number of deaths in the other Services in order to draw upon their experiences.

7.  "Non-combat situations"

  Deecut & Beyond has used this form of words to describe those fatalities where the cause of death cannot be considered solely or principally to be the result of enemy or hostile action. We wish the inquiry to examine all potentially unlawful deaths and deaths where there is a suspicion that ill-treatment or negligence may have been a significant contributory factor. This will inevitably include deaths previously described as "accidental" and "by natural causes".

8.  "Barracks"

  This taken to describe incidents where the deceased was stationed at these barracks or where their experience during the time they were stationed there may have contributed or be relevant to the circumstances surrounding their death.

9.  Catterick

  ref Defence Select Cttee evidence

10.  Northern Ireland

  The Deepcut & Beyond group includes families from both England and Northern Ireland who have experience of controversial deaths in Northern Ireland. Here, the ongoing threat of political violence invites comparisons with deaths in a combat zone. While deaths in Northern Ireland may be subject to investigation by the civilian police, the rules governing Coroners' Inquiries remain at variance with the rest of the United Kingdom. This also affects Northern Ireland families of service personnel that have died outside the UK.

11.  Overseas

  The proper investigation of service personnel deaths overseas poses a major problem for the MoD, especially since the High Court has ruled[52] that individuals may expect the protection of European Convention rights in areas outside the UK that are under its effective control. This will clearly include military bases. The Deepcut & Beyond families group includes those with experiences of controversial deaths in countries where the civilian police was inadequate, prevented or otherwise unable to conduct an independent investigation of a death. The Royal Military Police has neither the independence nor the competence to conduct an Article 2 compliant investigation. The Health & Safety Executive presently has no competence to investigate deaths occurring outside the United Kingdom. The provision for investigation by the Coroners' Courts in England & Wales or Fatal Accident Inquiries in Scotland is, in our experience, at best cursory and generally absent.

12.  Time limits

  Members of the Deepcut & Beyond family group have been pressed to specify a cut off point in time before which incidents would fall outside the scope of a public inquiry. The overwhelming majority of incidents brought to our attention have occurred in since 1990. We find no grounds for the Inquiry in advance to exclude incidents that may be brought to its attention or may raise additional elements that might assist its final recommendations.

13.  Inclusivity

  Deepcut & Beyond families take the position that it is not for the victims to determine which of the deaths brought to its attention should properly be the subject of further investigation; to judge the strength or determine the veracity of fresh evidence; or to consider all those matters that cast doubt upon the verdict of a Coroner's Court. These matters are ultimately for judicial determination.

14.  "Families"

  This would include immediate relatives and other properly interested parties.

15.  "All public bodies"

  Deepcut & Beyond families have identified failures that go beyond the responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence. It is generally the case that bereaved families have identified missed opportunities where other public authorities or voluntary agencies could have prevented or stepped in to blow the whistle on unlawful deaths. Examination of the work of the army welfare and pastoral services, Coroners' and Courts Services; the Police, Health and Social Services departments should all come under the appropriate scrutiny by the Inquiry.

see also Appendix 1 in hard copy.

The Queen—On The Application Of—Mazin Jumaa Gatteh Al Skeini And Others—V—The Secretary Of State For Defence (14 December 2004).



51   Early Day Motion. http://edm.hclibrary.parliament.uk/edmdata/html/printable.html/EDMISES=03/ref=78 Back

52   http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/View.do?id=2980 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 14 March 2005