Clause 5 - Proceedings for a delivery order
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 4, line 3, after `court', insert—
`or service court in the case of service personnel'.
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham for allowing me to table this amendment with their support. The amendment is a redrafted version of amendment No. 23 that should be consistent with the language used in the Bill. Service courts are defined in clause 75, and the term ``service court'' is therefore more appropriate than ``court martial''. The amendment is needed because service courts are not identified in clause 26 as a competent court for the purposes of section 5. I want to explain why it is important that they are included for proceedings against service personnel under the Act.
In his reply to the debate about who would serve as judges on the ICC, the Minister drew attention to the merit of judges with military experience, saying:
``We agree that it is important to have top-quality judges and juries. There will be judges who are experienced in humanitarian law, but—this may help the hon. Member for Aldershot—there will also be military judges who are experienced in the rules and laws of war.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 April 2001; c. 103.]
In the case of the Army, assistance in service courts is normally available from the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Forces. Its representatives are not mentioned as officers whose presence would enable a service court to be a competent court for the purpose of the relevant proceedings.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is important to remember the circumstances in which the ICC will seek the arrest of a British subject under the Act. As we debated on Tuesday, the United Kingdom will have decided not to bring someone to justice or will be thought to have done so inadequately. Inevitably, the circumstances will be controversial. It would be infinitely better for service men to go through the process at the hands of service courts. Let me explain why.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham asked me to move the amendment because of my 12 years in the Army. Soldiers, sailors and airmen regard the military discipline system as just. Let us assume that the amendment is not accepted. The ICC will exercise its jurisdiction, having overridden the principle of complementarity and because we have decided, for whatever reason, not to bring a soldier, sailor or airman to justice. Technically, it could be argued that it will make no practical difference if the service man goes before a civilian court for the purposes of clause 5, but it will make the greatest difference to morale and confidence in the system in the services themselves.
We must acknowledge the services' proper concerns about the Bill. They have been expressed, virtually on the record, by the Chief of the Defence Staff. It is important that the Government listen to concerns about the conduct of the process and, as far as possible, find ways to allay them. Therefore, when a service man is to be delivered to an international jurisdiction outwith that of the United Kingdom, it would be infinitely preferable for a service court, which is part of the military justice system, to make the order.