Peers launch a scathing attack on the government’s War Crimes Immunity Bill

UK Troops, Afghanistan
Joe Glenton

Peers in the House of Lords are giving the government’s controversial war crimes immunity bill a rough ride, with one peer describing it as “indefensible”.

Another warned that it was among the worst pieces of legislation they had ever seen, while a third peer said it would put service personnel on a “different legal basis” to the society they defend.

The Overseas Operations Bill aims to stop so-called ‘vexatious’ allegations being pursued against UK troops for abuse and even murder during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has been championed by former army officer turned veterans’ affairs minister Johnny Mercer.


Former generals, veterans, human rights groups, military charities and lawyers have slammed the bill for a variety of reasons. Criticisms include that it would stop troops suing the MOD, it would undermine the UK’s international standing, damage international law and deny victims justice.

The substantial Tory majority in parliament saw the bill pass through the Commons relatively unimpeded. It has now just finished its second reading stage in the House of Lords.

Among its provisions would be a “presumption against prosecution where five or more years have passed since an alleged offence on an overseas operation”.


Liberal Democrat peer Lord Thomas of Gresford said:

 Sexual offences are excluded from the presumption, so if a soldier tortures, rapes and kills a civilian, there is a presumption against prosecuting him for the torture and the murder but not for the rape. This is surely indefensible on any policy or moral basis.

Baroness Northover, also a Liberal Democrat, said the bill was one of the worst she had seen:

We certainly owe those Armed Forces a huge debt of gratitude. But I do not think I have ever participated in a piece of legislation which is so evidently flawed, except perhaps the Brexit Bill which sought to break international law.

Labour’s Lord Rotherham, meanwhile, warned that the provisions in the bill risked putting UK troops on a different legal footing to the rest of society:

We do a disservice to our troops, now and in the future, if we put them on a different legal basis to the society they represent and defend. We can and should make improvements in this House. The Government should take some time before they bring the Bill back to consider it. In that way, we might avoid that iron law of unintended consequences. We have a duty to do so.

“Legal exceptionalism”

Elsewhere in the press, former senior Royal Navy officer Lord West said the bill was probably in need of amendment:

Another former senior officer reportedly warned that the new laws could create a state of “legal exceptionalism”:

The debate over this critical piece of legislation continues in the Lords.

Featured image via Elite Forces UK/Staff Sergeant James Elmer

We need your help ...

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.

Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.

We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.

Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?

The Canary Support us