Contribution
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group and, while they are not related to stalking, the principles behind tabling them are not dissimilar. They specify more detail than I think the Minister is comfortable with, but each states very clearly where the boundaries are on a number of issues.
Amendment 24 seeks to remove the power of a commanding officer to hear an allegation of assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm when there is a domestic abuse element in the allegation. The amendment says that, in those circumstances, the case must be referred to a service police force for investigation or to the Director of Service Prosecutions for consideration of prosecution before that court martial or other such court has jurisdiction.
This whole area around the role of the commanding officer, who will have a very different knowledge of individuals, not just those who report to them but also perhaps their families who are involved in this case, is a sensitive one. We have to compare this with the position of the service police or prosecutors, who will not have that personal knowledge of all the individuals. It is obvious that any more serious crime that was committed would not be permitted to be heard by the commanding officer—and yet, a crime involving assault or ABH and domestic abuse can at present be heard summarily by the commanding officer.
The reason for concern is that the domestic abuse guidance for those involved in investigating DA and associated crimes are that all those involved should have specialist training to understand how domestic abuse, assault and ABH need to be identified when often victims say that those in authority in the past have diminished the seriousness because it was domestic or the perpetrator has managed to hide it very well. But assault and ABH are not minor crimes: committed on a domestic partner, they are very serious.
The role of the commanding officer in hearing cases at this level may be understandable if it is a fight between two servicemen, so I understand why there is some provision there, although there are many who now question whether this should be the responsibility of the commanding officer at all. But my amendment specifically draws out assault and ABH in a domestic abuse setting and says that that must be dealt with by the service criminal justice specialists.
There is a general principle here. The Centre for Military Justice and many individual victims and campaigners find it unreasonable that there is still a role for the commanding officer in these cases at all.
I think it was the Minister who referred to Gunner Jaysley Beck: an appalling case. She was sexually assaulted by a warrant officer more than twice her age and then sexually harassed for months by her line manager, who was almost 10 years her senior. The inquest found that the Army’s failure to deal with her report of sexual assault appropriately, and the pressure of relentless sexual harassment she had endured, contributed to her death by suicide on 15 December 2021.
Before and after the inquest, the family, with support from the Centre for Military Justice, campaigned for greater independence in the handling of serious service complaints for service personnel who have suffered serious sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying in the military. On 18 March 2025, the Government announced that they were taking responsibility for the handling of serious cases such as these away from any single service itself. That is good. However, I am afraid that some anomalies remain, such as the issues in my amendment relating to ABH and domestic abuse.
Amendment 25 ensures that the services victims’ code must always apply to victims of sexual offences. It also ensures that service personnel whose cases are being taken forward in the criminal justice system will receive an equivalent right to service-provided victim services as those whose cases are taken forward in the services justice system. I laid this amendment to prevent service personnel and their victims falling through the cracks between the criminal justice system’s victims’ code, the services victims’ code and all the other things that might pertain to their case.
Amendment 26 relates to
“Production orders: notice to the subject of the material”.
It sets out in some detail how an application is made, then handed or served to the individual. It also sets out that the judge advocate must be satisfied that all the requirements have been complied with, with some exceptions noted where it would involve risk of harm or exceptional other circumstances. This is not dissimilar to the requirements for the civil police arrangements under powers of stop, search, seizure and retention. I believe that this amendment would both strengthen the process of a production order and prevent any abuse of such an order.
All three amendments are highly specific and may seem rather niche, but they aim to do one thing: to clarify and improve the service justice system for all those who come into contact with it or who administer it. I beg to move.