Parliamentary briefing: Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill – House of Lords second reading
This briefing outlines our views in relation to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill ahead of its second reading in the House of Lords.
The Bill, which passed through all stages in the House of Commons, has a stated aim of addressing vexatious claims and the prosecution of historical events that occurred in armed conflict overseas.
In its current state, we have concerns that the Bill has implications for the application of the European Convention on Human Rights and introduces a statutory presumption against prosecution for certain cases, and time limits for others.
While the government’s stated objective of reducing spurious claims against service personnel and veterans is a valid aim, we believe that this Bill goes far beyond this purpose and would bar legitimate allegations of serious criminal offences.
The introduction of a presumption against prosecution in the Bill creates a special category of criminal case, hitherto unrecognised in UK law. It amounts to a quasi-statute of limitations and would likely, in practice, prevent some meritorious prosecutions from proceeding or not being brought.
The UK is legally obliged to investigate, and where the evidence supports it, prosecute alleged offences such as torture and unlawful killing. The Bill may engender a breach of the UK’s international obligations in respect of this under Article 7 of the UN Convention Against Torture, and Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
We do not consider that the circumstances in which the government intends to derogate from ECHR obligations would meet the necessary legal requirements. In any case, the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment cannot be derogated from.
To derogate ahead of armed conflicts would undermine our own international standing and ability to hold other states to account for abuses in war. It may also place our own armed forces personnel at increased risk of being subjected to abusive treatment if captured.
We do not consider that a limitation period for civil and human rights claims is necessary.
We have seen no evidence to suggest the courts are unable or unwilling to use their discretion to sift out unmeritorious claims. They can, and do, reject claims with little chance of success where:
- the passage of time has affected the evidence, or
- the public interest outweighs the claim