Latest news with #OperationBanner
Telegraph
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour accused of ‘two tier justice' over legal aid for Gerry Adams
The Government has been accused of 'two tier justice' over legal aid for Gerry Adams. Earlier this year it was revealed that Mr Adams, the former Sinn Fein president, would be in line for taxpayer-funded compensation because of Sir Keir Starmer's decision to repeal Troubles legislation. Under current law, Mr Adams is blocked from claiming compensation over his detention in prison in the 1970s. Sir Keir's plans will repeal the Legacy Act introduced by the Tories, which denied Mr Adams and up to 400 other IRA 'suspects' also detained in the 1970s the right to claim compensation. The Ministry of Defence confirmed on Monday that it will seek a judicial review to challenge a coroner's ruling that could lead to SAS veterans being prosecuted for killing four IRA terrorists. The coroner found members of an SAS unit used unjustified lethal force when they killed four IRA terrorists in an ambush at Clonoe in 1992. The decision to commit to a judicial review came after James Cartlidge, shadow defence secretary, wrote to Al Carns, the veterans minister, asking for one. Mark Francois, shadow defence minister, told the Commons he welcomed the review but asked: 'Why not drop the plans to revoke large parts of the Northern Ireland Legacy Act which would only serve to facilitate yet more inquests of this type?' Mr Francois said: 'Revoking the Legacy Act would encourage a system of two tier justice. One for our army veterans and another for alleged IRA terrorists, including those who have been given so-called letters of comfort by the Blair regime.' He asked: 'Why should a Labour government assist Gerry Adams to sue the British taxpayer? How is that supporting those who served their country valiantly [in Northern Ireland] on Operation Banner?' Mr Carns, who served in Northern Ireland, insisted that he was working with the Northern Ireland Office to make sure anyone involved in any of the investigations gets the support they need. It comes as ministers were urged to give British troops 'maximum protection' from 'vexatious claims' in the courts if they are deployed to Ukraine on a peacekeeping mission. Tory MPs repeatedly pressed the Defence Secretary to confirm the Government would consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the event of any deployment to remove risk of such claims. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, stopped short of offering a specific commitment. He did point to 2021 legislation designed to give stronger protections for service personnel and veterans facing the threat of legal proceedings in relation to events which occurred on historical overseas operations. The UK is working on deploying troops to Ukraine as part of any peace deal as part of a so-called coalition of the willing. Mr Cartlidge told the Commons: 'If our forces go to Ukraine it will be as part of a peacekeeping mission. 'But, as the veterans minister reminded us earlier, Operation Banner was also described as being there to keep the peace, yet decades later those who served are being hounded in our courts and, in Iraq, our soldiers were subjected to hundreds of vexatious claims. 'So, if our forces go into Ukraine, will the Secretary of State consider derogating from the ECHR so as to maximise our protection against possible lawfare?' Mr Healey replied: 'If we go into Ukraine, we will be going into a negotiated peace not a shooting war. Our aim is to secure borders, to ensure safe skies, to ensure safe seas. 'I'd just ask the honourable gentleman, is he saying that he will not support a UK mission and UK troops without that derogation?' 'Maximum protection to our Armed Forces' Mr Cartlidge replied 'of course not' and added: 'The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the Labour government derogated from the ECHR after 9/11 and there's a country in Europe which has derogated from the ECHR since 2015 – that is Ukraine, it's because there's a war on. 'And surely he would recognise, even if it's a peacekeeping force, there will still be threats and Russian nationals have been particularly adept at lawfare in our own courts. 'So, I ask him, surely he will at least consider giving the maximum protection to our Armed Forces from vexatious claims by derogating from the ECHR if there is a deployment?' Mr Healey replied: 'Our Armed Forces will always have our fullest support. Just to be clear to the honourable gentleman, we are responding now, alongside France, to put together a coalition of the willing, responding to the challenge from the US for Europe to step up on Ukraine. 'We're responding to the requirement from Ukraine for security arrangements that will give them the conviction and confidence that any negotiated peace will last. 'That is a worthy mission, it's one the UK is leading and I would hope it has the support of all sides of this House.'
The Independent
24-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
British peacekeeping troops in Ukraine must have ‘lawfare' protection, MPs told
Ministers have been urged to give British troops 'maximum protection' from 'vexatious claims' in the courts if they are deployed to Ukraine on a peacekeeping mission. Conservative MPs repeatedly pressed Defence Secretary John Healey to confirm the UK Government would consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the event of any deployment to remove the 'lawfare' risk. Mr Healey stopped short of offering a specific commitment although he pointed to 2021 legislation designed to give stronger protections for service personnel and veterans facing the threat of legal proceedings in relation to events which occurred on historical overseas operations. The UK is working with allies to develop plans for troops to be deployed across land, air or sea to safeguard any peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. Speaking at defence questions, shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge told the Commons: 'If our forces go to Ukraine it will be as part of a peacekeeping mission. 'But, as the veterans minister (Alistair Carns) reminded us earlier, Operation Banner (in Northern Ireland) was also described as being there to keep the peace yet decades later those who served are being hounded in our courts and, in Iraq, our soldiers were subjected to hundreds of vexatious claims. 'So, if our forces go into Ukraine, will the Secretary of State consider derogating from the ECHR so as to maximise our protection against possible lawfare?' Mr Healey replied: 'If we go into Ukraine, we will be going into a negotiated peace not a shooting war. 'Our aim is to secure borders, to ensure safe skies, to ensure safe seas. 'I'd just ask the honourable gentleman is he saying that he will not support a UK mission and UK troops without that derogation?' Mr Cartlidge replied 'of course not', adding: 'The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the Labour government derogated from the ECHR after 9/11 and there's a country in Europe which has derogated from the ECHR since 2015 – that is Ukraine, it's because there's a war on. 'And surely he would recognise, even if it's a peacekeeping force, there will still be threats and Russian nationals have been particularly adept at lawfare in our own courts. 'So, I ask him, surely he will at least consider giving the maximum protection to our armed forces from vexatious claims by derogating from the ECHR if there is a deployment?' Mr Healey replied: 'Our armed forces will always have our fullest support. Just to be clear to the honourable gentleman, we are responding now, alongside France, to put together a coalition of the willing, responding to the challenge from the US for Europe to step up on Ukraine. 'We're responding to the requirement from Ukraine for security arrangements that will give them the conviction and confidence that any negotiated peace will last. 'That is a worthy mission, it's one the UK is leading and I would hope it has the support of all sides of this House.' Conservative former minister Sir David Davis later pressed Mr Healey further on the issue, as he also noted the 'whole House' supports the Government's action to preserve peace in Ukraine. Sir David said: 'That's not the point (Mr Cartlidge) was making. He's asking whether the Ministry of Defence recognises it has a duty of care to soldiers who fight for their country and then face decades of lawfare, misusing the European Convention on Human Rights. 'Will the department do something to protect those soldiers?' Mr Healey replied: 'We are totally committed to the duty of care we have, totally committed to standing by our forces and we recognise there's also legislation the last government put in place to deal with any concerns in this place – the Overseas Operations Act.'
Telegraph
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Government will not back review of ruling that could lead to prosecution of SAS unit for IRA deaths
The Government has refused to commit to a judicial review of a ruling that could bring the prosecution of SAS veterans for killing four IRA terrorists. Al Carns, the veterans minister, failed to back calls from former military leaders and the Tories to launch a judicial review into a ruling by a senior coroner. The coroner found members of an SAS unit used unjustified lethal force when they killed four IRA terrorists in an ambush in 1992. Mr Carns's response to a letter from James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, emerged on Wednesday, as Sir Keir Starmer was challenged on the case in the Commons, and urged to do more to protect soldiers and veterans from prosecution. 'Army morale at risk' Mr Cartlidge warned that the Government's refusal to commit to a review of the coroner's ruling would damage Army morale. The IRA men were gunned down in a car park minutes after they attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station in Coalisland, Co Tyrone, firing 30 rounds from a Soviet-made DSHK anti-aircraft machine gun mounted on the back of a stolen lorry. The SAS unit was lying in wait for the terrorists as they fled two miles to the car park of a Roman Catholic church in the village of Clonoe. Last month, Mr Justice Michael Humphreys, the coroner, rejected claims made by two of the soldiers, now in their 50s, that they held the 'honest belief' they needed to use lethal force. Military sources have said the coroner's verdict means they expect the case to be referred to Northern Ireland prosecutors and police for criminal investigation. The previous Tory government introduced a law last year which granted soldiers immunity from prosecution if they cooperated with a new information recovery body. The Government is currently in the process of repealing the legislation, which Sir Keir has said did not 'get the balance right' between the rights of veterans and victims. Mr Cartlidge wrote to the Ministry of Defence after the coroner's decision, urging the Government to seek a judicial review of the ruling, which critics say was legally flawed. In his response to Mr Cartlidge's letter, Mr Carns wrote: 'We owe a great deal of debt to our Armed Forces – the vast majority of those who served in Operation Banner during the Troubles, did so with distinction. 'The Government is committed to ensuring that the legacy of the past is addressed sensitively, efficiently, and lawfully. 'It is important, as we seek to find an agreed way forward, that we recognise the many bereaved families of ex-service personnel who continue to seek answers about the circumstances of their loved ones' death.' Ministers will take time over response Whitehall sources told The Telegraph ministers would take time to carefully consider their response to the coroner's ruling. The veterans involved in the case are being provided with welfare and legal support by the Government. But Mr Cartlidge warned that the response would undermine military morale at a sensitive time. He said: 'At a time when the Government is talking about the possibility of sending troops to Ukraine, it is shocking that they are not going to do the right thing by our veterans by judicially reviewing the Clonoe verdict. 'Given the clear reluctance of the MoD to defend the veterans concerned, the PM should recognise the harm this could do to Army morale and personally intervene.' Earlier, Sir David Davis, a former soldier in the Territorial Army's 21 SAS regiment, challenged Sir Keir on the verdict at PMQs. The former Tory minister told the Commons the judgment 'was based on no evidence whatsoever', and urged the Prime Minister to do more to protect veterans from prosecution. 'Partisan parodies of justice' 'Soldiers who serve our country with honour, heroism and skill are being punished in their declining years for doing nothing but carrying out their patriotic duty in the face of enormous risks,' he said. 'Does he not think that he and his Government have a duty to protect those soldiers from such partisan parodies of justice in their declining years?' Sir Keir replied that he had 'not seen the details' of the Clonoe case, despite it being raised repeatedly with ministers in recent weeks. The Prime Minister added: 'On the broader point, it is right that we should protect those who serve our country, wherever they serve our country.' Last month senior military figures including Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, wrote to The Telegraph calling for a judicial review in the Clonoe case. The open letter, which was also signed by Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, said overturning the verdict was 'vitally important in the interests of natural justice'.
