Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-205)
AIR VICE-MARSHAL
RICK CHARLES,
CAPTAIN BERNARD
DAVIS, MAJOR
GENERAL DAVID
HOWELL, MR
JULIAN MILLER
AND MR
HUMPHREY MORRISON
26 JANUARY 2006
Q200 Ben Chapman: Obviously some
civilians are subject to Service law when they are serving overseas
and the prosecuting authorities are responsible for bringing prosecutions.
What are the differences in approach when considering prosecutions
against civilian personnel subject to Service law rather than
prosecutions against Service personnel?
Major General Howell: Yes, obviously
the evidential principles are the same. The basic standard test,
as you know, is a realistic prospect of conviction. That is our
first issue. Obviously with civilians there are different options
for dealing with them than exist for servicemen because you have
the Standing Civilian Court which is available. A prosecutor has
to consider first of all whether or not public interest requires
any form of trial, and then he has other options. I know the Bill
is going to expand the range of penalties too which the Armed
Forces are able to impose, which again extends the reasoning process
that prosecutors go through. Obviously some civilians are going
to be young people with wives and families and those are factors
which any prosecuting authority would consider as part of the
public interest in whether or not to try. Apart from that, I do
not think there is anything else I can really add. There are,
as I say, opportunities to use a different court which is more
flexible and probably ideally suited to these figures rather than
Courts Martial. Obviously one would look at the individual circumstances
very carefully as to whether or not trial is really appropriate
in all circumstances, but that principle applies to servicemen.
Q201 Mr Burrowes: Looking at Clause
50, part 2 of the Bill, do you anticipate what the take-up would
be on that clause in relation to the extension of jurisdiction
of Courts Martial in the UK to try serious cases? What would you
anticipate to be the practical use of that clause or would they
have to be assigned to civilian courts as they are now?
Major General Howell: I think
that we would always view this as being a power that would be
used in very exceptional situations. The sort of situation we
envisage is something that has happened over the years in relation
to sexual offences because sometimes you do get situations of
soldiers allegedly committing offences in lots of different jurisdictions.
I know of one case where offences were committed in Hawaii, Germany,
Northern Ireland and I forget the fourth country, and the only
court that could try the whole lot of those things was a Court
Martial, because, as you know, most courts are limited territorially.
I can see a situation where if you had a soldier committing murders
in a lot of different countries, one of which is the UK, it may
be easiest for a Court Martial to try the case because the Court
Martial can move around countries and listen to witnesses locally
and has that other advantage. I do think it is something that
is going to be very rare, to be frank, but can I imagine the situation
might exist.
Q202 Chairman: Thank you. One final
question. Would you object to Service personnel accused of serious
criminal offences having the right to elect for trial in the civil
courts rather than in the military system?
Major General Howell: I am not
sure it would be right for the prosecutor to try and deny a right
of objection if you felt that that ought to be given and fair.
I am not sure if that is really right to be determined or to have
a say in the code that should be applicable.
Q203 Chairman: I am not talking about
a particular case. I am talking about the principle behind it.
Major General Howell: It is something
which I think we will have to give a lot of careful consideration
to. Allowing an individual to determine a court, I know of course
there is a precedent for that in some circumstances, of course
the whole aim of the military court system is to enable the individual
to be tried by people who understand the situation which he is
in. To say that he will have the right to have someone decide
a case who does not have that understanding, should he have that
right, is really more for you to say than us.
Q204 Chairman: I will take that as
your final word, but if on reflection you feel you want to add
to that, the Committee would be very happy to have those representations.
Major General Howell: We will
consider it.
Q205 Chairman: With that, thank you
very much for your attendance. It has been very helpful indeed.
Major General Howell: Thank you
very much.
| 
