Armed Forces Bill — Clause 7 — Concurrent jurisdiction — Serious Crimes to be Tried in Civilian Courts — 6 Dec 2021 at 20:37
The majority of MPs voted not to require allegations of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration by members of the armed services to generally be considered by civilian courts.
MPs were considering the Bill Armed Forces Bill.[1][2][3]
The motion rejected in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 1[4] stated:
- Page 4, line 27, at end insert—
- “(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide that where offences of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape or sexual assault with penetration are alleged to have been committed in the United
Kingdom, any charges brought against a person subject to service law shall normally be tried in a civilian court unless, by reason of specific naval or military complexity involving the service, the Attorney General consents to trial by court martial.
Had it not been rejected this amendment would have impacted Clause 7 of the Bill[2] which provided for a new chapter to the Armed Forces Act 2006. The new chapter set out requirements for The Director of Service Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions (or Lord Advocate in Scotland, or Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland) to agree a protocol regarding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction in connection with offences which took place in the United Kingdom and could be pursued under civilian law.
Those subject to service law are: members of the regular forces, at all times, and members of the reserve forces when they are on duty.[6]
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Armed Forces Bill 2021, Parliament.uk
- [2] Armed Forces Bill as introduced to the House of Lords, 14 July 2021, Parliament.uk
- [3] Explanatory notes to the Armed Forces Bill as introduced to the House of Lords, 14 July 2021, Parliament.uk
- [4] Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill, 30 November 2021, Parliament.uk
- [5] Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Armed Forces Bill, 30 November 2021, Parliament.uk
- [6] Chapter 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, Legislation.gov.uk
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 299 (+2 tell) | 3 | 1 | 84.3% |
| DUP | 0 | 5 | 0 | 62.5% |
| Independent | 0 | 3 | 0 | 60.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 168 (+2 tell) | 0 | 85.4% |
| LDem | 0 | 5 | 0 | 41.7% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 30 | 0 | 66.7% |
| Total: | 299 | 219 | 1 | 82.2% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by vote
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Sarah Atherton | Wrexham | Con (front bench) | no |
| Philip Hollobone | Kettering | Con (front bench) | no |
| Johnny Mercer | Plymouth, Moor View | Con (front bench) | no |
| Thomas Tugendhat | Tonbridge and Malling | Con (front bench) | both |