Another day, another attack on the rule of law. This time from our former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace in the Telegraph, taking issue with the Attorney General, then pivoting to attack the process of investigating killings perpetrated during the Troubles and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). His opinion piece last night was then followed up by various other pieces in the same paper on so-called ‘lawfare’ having been reportedly deployed against British soldiers.
How shocking that Wallace should decry the process of investigating historic alleged killings perpetrated by anyone, let alone agents of the state. His government did not, as he suggests, legislate “to stop repeated inquiries into the same occurrences” by the Legacy Act (which he now seems to be suggesting was called a “Veterans Act”). They legislated to stop everything: every criminal case, inquest, police complaint, civil claim – if it was to do with the Troubles, it was brought to a halt overnight. And it brought into law for the first time a conditional immunity scheme that would have let the killers of British soldiers off the hook. We represent the family of a young paratrooper murdered in cold blood by the IRA. The Telegraph once reported on it (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/27/just-viewed-collateral-damage-family-british-soldier-murdered/). The government of which Mr Wallace was a part shut down forever the criminal and police complaint investigation into that young man’s killing – and hundreds of others involving service personnel as victims according to a freedom of information act we submitted – having systematically deprived the investigating authorities of the funds they needed for years to investigate them effectively. (Wallace also conveniently overlooks the fact that both the High Court and Court of Appeal in NI declared multiple parts of his Legacy Act unlawful and any government would have had to deal with the mess, whatever colour it was.)
If you’re saying – as the Conservative Party now is – that the UK needs to come out of the ECHR, then you are saying the inquiry that revealed how Baha Mousa had been tortured and killed by British soldiers in Iraq should not have happened; you are saying we should not investigate those serious allegations lately made against special forces in Afghanistan. You simply cannot start from the position that our forces would never do anything like that and maintain the position therefore that no investigation is warranted. We know the vast majority of our people serve with bravery and distinction. But there will always be a few who do not. And when that happens, there needs to be an effective system for investigating it. The military authorities cannot always be relied upon. And it is important to remember that those under whose watch alleged atrocities occurred might have a very particular interest in shutting down the inquests and inquiries compelled by the ECHR.
If you want us to come out of the ECHR, you’re also saying that inquests like Jaysley Beck’s should not have happened – because it was only Article 2 of the ECHR that compelled the kind of wide coronial investigation that was held into her death and which later led to a criminal conviction and other important policy reforms. The same is true for the Deepcut inquests, or the Ellement inquest that led to the creation of the first ever independent service complaints ombudsman for the armed forces as well as changes to the way the Army supports those who have reported bullying and rape. Cases like these were only possible because of the ECHR.
What contributions like this are really about is turning a blind eye. You either believe in the rule of law or you don’t. You either believe that those who act on behalf of the state should be held accountable to the same laws as the rest of us or you think we should be able quietly look away. If it is of any interest to the Telegraph, they might like to know that Richard Hermer acted for that young paratrooper’s family, before he took up his present appointment. Weaponising veterans’s fears and using them to score petty party political points does no favours to our service personnel at all.