Joint Committee On Human Rights Ninth Report


2. Reply from Ivor Caplin MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence

Thank you for your letter of 4 February in which you advised that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has examined the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004. I was pleased to note that the Committee had formed a preliminary view that it was content with the Order and its making by my Department, subject to the further information you requested.

You indicated that the Committee wished to be informed of the steps that were being taken to ensure that the naval discipline system would operate in a manner compatible with ECHR Article 6.1, and to publicise the making the Order to all Royal Navy personnel and other interested parties.

As you would expect, my Department has taken urgent steps in this regard. As I reported at the outset to Parliament (Official Report 5 WS refers), we immediately ceased using serving naval officers as judge advocates for courts-martial, summary appeal courts and as judicial officers. This decision took effect from the date of the judgement. We have put in place arrangements for civilian judge advocates to sit on naval courts-martial, in the naval Summary Appeal Court and as judicial officers. The appointment of judge advocates by the Chief Naval Judge Advocate has ceased, and that post has lapsed. Judge advocates are now appointed by the Judge Advocate of the Fleet. It follows that Article 3630 of the Queen's Regulations for the Royal Navy, which set out the arrangements for reporting on the performance of naval judge advocates, is now no longer applicable and has been removed from the publication.

You asked what action had been taken to amend the briefing notes sent to members of naval courts-martial used in the Grieves case, which the ECtHR regarded as less than fully effective. These had, in fact, been reviewed and re-issued in late 2002 (a year or so before the Grieves judgement was issued) as part of the normal process. They are, therefore, no longer deficient and are, in any case, kept under regular review (for example, they are currently being updated to reflect the appointment of civilian judge advocates, and are being compared with those of the Army and RAF to ensure maximum possible consistency across the three Services).

Your second point concerned publicity given to the remedial Order. This took place through the medium of a "Galaxy" briefing note which was sent out on 3 February 2004. A "Galaxy" briefing note is the normal medium of internal communication used when we wish to draw the attention of all personnel, service and civilian, to information that is of wider interest to the Royal Navy and those associated with it, and which needs to be circulated quickly.[20] A copy is enclosed for your information. You are aware that the remedial Order has been laid before both Houses, which will enable Members to make representations should they so wish. You may also wish to be aware that the Lord Chancellor, the Department of Constitutional Affairs, the Office of the Judge Advocate General and the Judge Advocate of the Fleet have all been heavily involved in the action taken as a consequence of the Grieves judgement.

I hope this response provides the Committee with the reassurance that it sought in relation to the actions that we have and are taking in response to the ECtHR judgement.

18 February 2004

Annex: Galaxy Briefing Note

Future arrangements for RN Courts-Martial and Summary Appeal Courts and change of title of the Chief Naval Judge Advocate

The European Court of Human Rights handed down its judgement in the case of Grieves v UK, on 16 December 2003. The upshot of this judgement is that serving naval officers will no longer be able to sit as Judge Advocates in naval courts-martial. The ECtHR ruled that naval Judge Advocates did not give the perception of independence and impartiality (unlike their civilian counterparts who sit in Army and RAF courts-martial), but was at pains to point out that there was no suggestion that naval judges acted in any improper way or were biased in the way they performed their duties. In fact neither Grieves, nor his legal adviser, suggested that naval judge advocates were anything other than scrupulously fair.

As a result of this judgement the use of serving officers ceased with immediate effect and courts-martial and summary appeals scheduled for January 2004 were postponed pending changes to the Naval Discipline Act. These changes, implemented through a Remedial Order under s10 of the Human Rights Act, substitute the Chief Naval Judge Advocate with the Judge Advocate of the Fleet (JAF—a civilian Circuit Judge) as the authority to appoint judge advocates and judicial officers. USofS signed the Remedial Order on 14 January, thus enabling courts-martial and SACs to run from 16 January 2004.

With immediate effect, therefore, civilians appointed by JAF will sit as judge advocates in naval courts-martial and summary appeal courts. There will be some other changes to the courts process which flow from this change—all courts-martial and summary appeal courts will be held in an "assize" each month (ie a block of one or two weeks), their location dependent upon requirements; those officers who are randomly selected to sit on courts-martial and summary appeal courts panels will be required to sit for longer than before (but not longer than two weeks), and for courts-martial there may be some changes to the layout of the court room and the trial procedure. However, in all other respects the trials will remain substantially the same. Most importantly, none of these changes effect summary investigation or trial, which should continue exactly as before.

One consequence of the Remedial Order is that the title "Chief Naval Judge Advocate" no longer has statutory authority or relevance and has been discontinued with affect from 15 January 2004. CNJA has been re-titled "Director of Naval Legal Services" (DNLS). A DCI will be issued in due course.


20   Galaxy briefing notes contain information which may be relevant to all staff, both service and civilian. They should be cascade briefed or disseminated as widely and as quickly as possible. Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 29 March 2004