header-logo header-logo

21 April 2021
Issue: 7929 / Categories: Legal News , Military , Criminal , International justice
printer mail-detail

Parliament gets tough on Overseas Operations Bill

MPs and peers went into battle this week over the government’s controversial Bill to limit soldiers’ accountability for war crimes.

The Lords made extensive amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, including removing a six-year time limit for civil claims against the Ministry of Defence (MoD); excluding war crimes and genocide from the presumption against prosecution; and adding a clause to impose a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence for veterans and service personnel involved in investigations and litigation relating to overseas operations.

The bill returned to the House of Commons this week, with the government expected to mount a staunch defence.

Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen has called on MPs to ‘drop the bill altogether’.

A YouGov Direct poll commissioned by the Law Society, and published this week, found the public overwhelmingly (96%) backs the British military being held to the same (71%) or higher (25%) legal standards as the average citizen. 94% of people said they think it is important the UK is seen as a country which upholds the law.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘The UK is obliged by international law to investigate and prosecute well-evidenced serious offences committed during overseas operations.

‘No other serious crime, let alone crimes against humanity or torture, has a limitation period and no exception should be introduced. If the UK is seen to set itself outside internationally agreed standards, it risks fuelling a culture of impunity, undermining its global standing, its ability to hold other states to account and longstanding international cooperation practices.’

Boyce said the proposal to put a time limit on compensation claims against the MoD could prevent Armed Forces personnel, other MoD employees and civilians getting compensation for injuries and medical conditions caused by military activities. She said: ‘We believe this would be a gross injustice both to those who have dedicated their lives to their country and to innocent victims.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll