VM445 - Accountability for preventable armed forces deaths Motion 2017

Watch
Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (9)
18.75%
On the contrary, No (28)
58.33%
Abstain (11)
22.92%
This discussion is closed.
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1

VM445 - Accountability for preventable armed forces deaths Motion 2017, TSR Green Party

This House notes the apology given to the family of Private Philip Hewitt, who died in 2005 whilst serving in Her Majesty's Forces in Iraq after the vehicle he was in was blown up. This House notes the comments made in the Chilcot Inquiry Report about Snatch Land Rovers being vulnerable to bombs.

This House believes that sending troops to war without suitable equipment is inexcusable, and that given the history of terrorists blowing up vehicles of the armed forces (such as by the Provisional IRA on more than one occasion), highly foreseeable. This House believes that those principally responsible for the decision to send under-equipped forces into conflict in these circumstances should be held accountable.

This House therefore asks the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate and consider possible criminal charges against the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Anthony Blair, and the Defence Secretary, Mr Geoff Hoon.
0
Obiejess
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Agree with the sentiment, but surely this would go against the non-retroactivity principle?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
Nay. Once again the Greens write an item then fail to engage in debate at all.
0
That'sGreat
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nay. Once again the Greens write an item then fail to engage in debate at all.
Only been up an hour, give them a chance
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
War is war, and as horrible as it is, deaths are inevitable; I disagree with expressly incriminating Misters Blair and Hoon for their roles in the Iraq conflict however I do see the Greens' point with regard to the poor equipment of soldiers (although we must note that the blame for this does not solely lie at the feet of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State) and I think that in hindsight the conditions of the troops entering Iraq was a tragedy.

Nay on this although I would support a revised and watered down motion.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by That'sGreat)
Only been up an hour, give them a chance
I'm referring to the time it was up before the House and no Green member engaged. Bills should not be sent to Division if no representative of the party has been present for debate.
0
That'sGreat
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I'm referring to the time it was up before the House and no Green member engaged. Bills should not be sent to Division if no representative of the party has been present for debate.
Oh ok, my bad
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
Aye.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Obiejess)
Agree with the sentiment, but surely this would go against the non-retroactivity principle?
Exactly the point I raised during the reading of the motion:

Spoiler:
Show


The only law I could think of that would sort of apply would be the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, specifically under section 1(1) which dictates:

An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised—
(a)causes a person's death, and
(b)amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.

However, I am doubtful that this act applies retroactively and section 4 states:

(1)Any duty of care owed by the Ministry of Defence in respect of—
(a)operations within subsection (2),
(b)activities carried on in preparation for, or directly in support of, such operations, or
(c)training of a hazardous nature, or training carried out in a hazardous way, which it is considered needs to be carried out, or carried out in that way, in order to improve or maintain the effectiveness of the armed forces with respect to such operations,
is not a “relevant duty of care”.
(2)The operations within this subsection are operations, including peacekeeping operations and operations for dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or serious public disorder, in the course of which members of the armed forces come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance.

Thus, annulling any duty of care, a necessary requirement for the act.

Furthermore, regardless of the particular law used, the defence of 'volenti non fit injuria' can be used 'which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict'

1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#10
One Aye has been removed due to a double vote in seat 16.
One Nay has been removed due to an invalid vote.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#11
Order!
The Ayes to the right, 9.
The Noes to the left, 28.
Abstentions, 11.

I think the Noes have it! The Noes have it! Unlock!!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (254)
34%
No (493)
66%

Watched Threads

View All