Civil persecution of Servicemen & women
This whole thing stinks of that other legal bandwagon started by the Rolf Harris trial, where any woman who had her bum patted in 1975 is determined to have her day in court. This demeans those who were raped or seriously assaulted. In the same way, My Lai type massacres quite rightly have to be dealt with, but trawling for complaints in Iraq is going to come up with some very dubious stuff, and as usual the only winners will be the lawyers.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when will service to the crown become a risk too great to bear?
When applicants sign on the dotted line are they made familiar with all of the potential pitfalls of the job? I suspect not.
When applicants sign on the dotted line are they made familiar with all of the potential pitfalls of the job? I suspect not.
"Are you prepared to go to war, on the instructions of your government, on pain of Courts Martial and severe punishment if you refuse and are you prepared to stand trial up to fifty years after any life threatening encounter, with a recognised enemy, when, in the heat of the battle, an incident may occur that is without the pertaining ROE, even though you managed to save not only your life but those of your colleagues and win the encounter to the advantage of the government that sent you to war in the first place?
A simple YES or NO will suffice."
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: M4 Corridor
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a slimy thread which runs through this legal travesty and that is left by the unctuous Phil Shiner. It was his discredited cases regarding the Iraq war which rewarded him handsomely from the public purse. The dossier given to the ICC at the Hague, which is under consideration, was presented by a legal firm called PIL which is owned by the aforesaid lawyer who consistently represents any jihadi with a grudge. This new attempt to denigrate British forces was heralded on the Beeb news last night by a lawyer called Bethany Shiner. What a coincidence. Let us hope that the ICC sees through this farrago as the money spinning exercise that it is.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Down Under
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
David Cameron calls for action on 'spurious claims' against Iraq veterans
David Cameron has ordered ministers to take action to clamp down on lawyers pursuing claims against veterans of the Iraq war.
Ministers on the national security council have been given the task of drawing up options to end “spurious claims”, including measures to curb the use of “no win, no fee” arrangements and the requirement that legal aid claimants must have lived in the UK for 12 months.
Law firms found to have abused the system could face tougher penalties under the measures being considered.
A No 10 source said: “The prime minister is deeply concerned at the large number of spurious claims being made against members of our armed forces. He is absolutely clear that action needs to be taken and has asked the national security council to produce a clear, detailed plan on how we stop former troops facing this torment.”
The clampdown on the financial incentives will be accompanied by tough action against any firms found to have abused the system in the past to pursue fabricated claims.
Law firm Leigh Day has already been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as a result of the failure to disclose a key document to the £31m Al-Sweady inquiry. The inquiry concluded in its final report in December 2014 that allegations of war crimes following the Battle of Danny Boy on 14 May 2004 in southern Iraq were based on “deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”.
Once disciplinary proceedings have been completed against any firm, the defence secretary Michael Fallon has been ordered to prepare the ground for seeking to recover as much of the taxpayers’ money spent on the inquiry as possible................
David Cameron has ordered ministers to take action to clamp down on lawyers pursuing claims against veterans of the Iraq war.
Ministers on the national security council have been given the task of drawing up options to end “spurious claims”, including measures to curb the use of “no win, no fee” arrangements and the requirement that legal aid claimants must have lived in the UK for 12 months.
Law firms found to have abused the system could face tougher penalties under the measures being considered.
A No 10 source said: “The prime minister is deeply concerned at the large number of spurious claims being made against members of our armed forces. He is absolutely clear that action needs to be taken and has asked the national security council to produce a clear, detailed plan on how we stop former troops facing this torment.”
The clampdown on the financial incentives will be accompanied by tough action against any firms found to have abused the system in the past to pursue fabricated claims.
Law firm Leigh Day has already been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as a result of the failure to disclose a key document to the £31m Al-Sweady inquiry. The inquiry concluded in its final report in December 2014 that allegations of war crimes following the Battle of Danny Boy on 14 May 2004 in southern Iraq were based on “deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”.
Once disciplinary proceedings have been completed against any firm, the defence secretary Michael Fallon has been ordered to prepare the ground for seeking to recover as much of the taxpayers’ money spent on the inquiry as possible................
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Free speech at last
Two or more years ago on these pages I said that action should be taken against the Lawyers who at the time were taking actions that can only be discribed as fishing trips against British servicemen.
These posts instantly disappeared, the moderators no doubt in fear of leagal action by PIL or Leigh Day, well the boot is on the other foot now with said lawyers facing hearings into their conduct, as well as the govenment looking at action to recover funds that these people claimed via the leagal aid system.
I very much look forward to the day that a serviceman takes leagal action against these ambulance chasing lawyers for the psychological damage done for the years of torment resulting from these dubious leagal cases.
It is also good that these issues are now open for comment on these pages, as the comments on PPrune are now the least of these lawyers problems I am pleased to observe.
These posts instantly disappeared, the moderators no doubt in fear of leagal action by PIL or Leigh Day, well the boot is on the other foot now with said lawyers facing hearings into their conduct, as well as the govenment looking at action to recover funds that these people claimed via the leagal aid system.
I very much look forward to the day that a serviceman takes leagal action against these ambulance chasing lawyers for the psychological damage done for the years of torment resulting from these dubious leagal cases.
It is also good that these issues are now open for comment on these pages, as the comments on PPrune are now the least of these lawyers problems I am pleased to observe.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...unal-36nbs3bzj
Law to protect soldiers ‘could leave them facing war crimes tribunal’
Legislation to curb vexatious claims against soldiers is “ill conceived” and could leave them more likely to face prosecution for war crimes, Britain’s most senior military judge has warned. Judge Jeffrey Blackett raised “significant concerns” about the Overseas Operations Bill in a letter, seen by The Times, that he sent last month to Ben Wallace, the defence secretary. A copy of the letter was also sent to the veterans minister, the head of the military and the director of the Service Prosecution Authority.
He warned that although the proposed legislation provides protections for current and former troops from prosecution for domestic offences, it increased the likelihood of them facing war crime charges at The Hague. Judge Blackett, who is judge advocate general of the Armed Forces, also argued that the Bill could “bring the UK armed forces into disrepute” by potentially preventing the prosecution of serious crimes........
The Bill is due to come before the Commons for its second reading before the summer recess, although no date has been set.
It aims to curb bogus and historical allegations via a “triple lock” of measures, including a statutory presumption against criminal prosecution once a five-year period has elapsed after an alleged crime. To override the presumption and press ahead with an “exceptional” prosecution, compelling new evidence must be adduced and the attorney general’s consent secured.
Judge Blackett, who said in his letter that he had not been consulted on the proposed legislation before it was published, called on the government to “think again” about the best way to protect soldiers and veterans from unfounded claims. He set out multiple major concerns about the Bill.
Since it does not cover International Criminal Court (ICC) offences, “it will likely encourage police and prosecutors to focus on war crimes, rather than domestic crimes, to evade the presumption against prosecution” after five years, he said. In addition, if the protections for personnel contained in the Bill were invoked, the ICC itself “may well determine that the UK is (unable or unwilling) to prosecute and initiate its own proceedings”. He warned: “This increases the likelihood of UK service personnel appearing before the ICC in the future.”
He cautioned that the Bill entailed a risk that serious violations would go unpunished, undermining the reputation of the vast majority of UK service personnel who do act within the law. It would be “inconceivable” if crimes such as the shooting dead of a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, for which Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman was convicted of manslaughter, escaped prosecution because they came to light after five years, he added.
Judge Blackett also reiterated concerns first raised in March by Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general, that sexual offences were exempt from the legislation’s presumption against prosecution after five years. This “inconsistency in approach” could lead to the “inequitable” scenario where a soldier who murdered a detainee would have a higher degree of protection from prosecution than one who sexually assaulted a detainee.
Furthermore, the effect of the proposed limitation period after alleged criminal activity “would encourage an accused person to frustrate the progress of investigation past the five-year point to engage a high bar for prosecution”, he said.
Judge Blackett acknowledged the “unnecessary heartache” of soldiers and veterans who faced vexatious claims about their conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that he shared “unease” about state investigations, which went on “far too long”.
However, he concluded: “The bill as drafted is not the answer.”
It is understood that the defence secretary has not yet replied to the letter, which was sent on May 14, but that he intends to do so......
Law to protect soldiers ‘could leave them facing war crimes tribunal’
Legislation to curb vexatious claims against soldiers is “ill conceived” and could leave them more likely to face prosecution for war crimes, Britain’s most senior military judge has warned. Judge Jeffrey Blackett raised “significant concerns” about the Overseas Operations Bill in a letter, seen by The Times, that he sent last month to Ben Wallace, the defence secretary. A copy of the letter was also sent to the veterans minister, the head of the military and the director of the Service Prosecution Authority.
He warned that although the proposed legislation provides protections for current and former troops from prosecution for domestic offences, it increased the likelihood of them facing war crime charges at The Hague. Judge Blackett, who is judge advocate general of the Armed Forces, also argued that the Bill could “bring the UK armed forces into disrepute” by potentially preventing the prosecution of serious crimes........
The Bill is due to come before the Commons for its second reading before the summer recess, although no date has been set.
It aims to curb bogus and historical allegations via a “triple lock” of measures, including a statutory presumption against criminal prosecution once a five-year period has elapsed after an alleged crime. To override the presumption and press ahead with an “exceptional” prosecution, compelling new evidence must be adduced and the attorney general’s consent secured.
Judge Blackett, who said in his letter that he had not been consulted on the proposed legislation before it was published, called on the government to “think again” about the best way to protect soldiers and veterans from unfounded claims. He set out multiple major concerns about the Bill.
Since it does not cover International Criminal Court (ICC) offences, “it will likely encourage police and prosecutors to focus on war crimes, rather than domestic crimes, to evade the presumption against prosecution” after five years, he said. In addition, if the protections for personnel contained in the Bill were invoked, the ICC itself “may well determine that the UK is (unable or unwilling) to prosecute and initiate its own proceedings”. He warned: “This increases the likelihood of UK service personnel appearing before the ICC in the future.”
He cautioned that the Bill entailed a risk that serious violations would go unpunished, undermining the reputation of the vast majority of UK service personnel who do act within the law. It would be “inconceivable” if crimes such as the shooting dead of a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, for which Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman was convicted of manslaughter, escaped prosecution because they came to light after five years, he added.
Judge Blackett also reiterated concerns first raised in March by Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general, that sexual offences were exempt from the legislation’s presumption against prosecution after five years. This “inconsistency in approach” could lead to the “inequitable” scenario where a soldier who murdered a detainee would have a higher degree of protection from prosecution than one who sexually assaulted a detainee.
Furthermore, the effect of the proposed limitation period after alleged criminal activity “would encourage an accused person to frustrate the progress of investigation past the five-year point to engage a high bar for prosecution”, he said.
Judge Blackett acknowledged the “unnecessary heartache” of soldiers and veterans who faced vexatious claims about their conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that he shared “unease” about state investigations, which went on “far too long”.
However, he concluded: “The bill as drafted is not the answer.”
It is understood that the defence secretary has not yet replied to the letter, which was sent on May 14, but that he intends to do so......
