1. Letter from the Chair to Ivor
Caplin MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of
Defence
You wrote to me on 14 January drawing the attention
of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the making of the Naval
Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004. The Committee is required
by its terms of reference and Standing Order to report to each
House on the above Order, laid before each House on 15 January
2004, and entering into force on 16 January 2004.
In examining a Remedial Order, the Committee discharges
both its particular responsibilities in respect of human rights
and the duties normally discharged by the Joint Committee on Statutory
Instruments in relation to other Orders.
The Committee has examined the Order and formed the
preliminary view that:
— the Order is within the powers conferred
by the Human Rights Act 1998, section 10;
— the requirements of Schedule 2 to that
Act have been complied with;
— the making of the Order by way of the
'urgent' procedure was justified;
— the Order appears to take the necessary
action to remedy the incompatibility established by the judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights in Grieves v. United
Kingdom so far as it resulted from the provisions of legislation,
and has no implications going beyond the scope of that judgment;
and
— the Order complies with the tests specified
in Standing Order No. 151 of the House of Commons, so far as they
are applicable.
Standing Order No. 152B of the House of Commons,
and the analogous sessional order of the House of Lords, permit
the Committee to report to each House on "any matter arising
from its consideration" of an Order. Before reporting to
each House on this Order, therefore, the Committee wishes to satisfy
itself that appropriate steps are being taken to ensure, so far
as possible, that the naval discipline system does not continue
to be in breach of the requirements of ECHR Article 6.1 by reason
of the other factors taken into account by the European Court
of Human Rights in Grieves v. United Kingdom which did
not arise directly from the terms of the legislation.
The Committee has noted particularly the significance
accorded to the following factors by the Court, set out in §80-§90
of its judgment—
— the use of serving naval officers as
judge advocates with a pivotal role in the court martial (§85,
§87-§89);
— reporting practices in relation to the
performance of naval judge advocates before Queen's Regulation
RN 3630 came into force (§86); and
— the level of detail in briefing notes
sent to members of naval courts martial (§90).
1. In the light of these considerations, the
Committee wishes to be informed of the steps which are being taken,
including the effect of implementing QRRN 3630, to ensure that
the factors identified by the Court do not in future compromise
the capacity of the naval discipline system to operate in a manner
compatible with ECHR Article 6.1.
2. The Committee also wishes to know whether
reasonable steps have been taken to publicise the making of the
Order to all ranks of the Royal Navy and other interested parties
so as to enable representations to be made to Ministers within
the period of 60 days after which it is possible to replace the
Order.
The Committee would wish to report on the Order before
the end of the statutory 60-day period, which will expire around
the middle of March. It would therefore be grateful for a reply
to this letter by 19 February at the latest.
4 February 2004
