MOD and the Rule of Law

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Iolis, Jun 13, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Remember the landmark case of Martin & MCGreevy who won their claim at the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in which the tribunal held that they were entitled to be considered for the award of a pension in respect of the Gulf War Syndrome which the MOD finally acknowledged existed and who declined to appeal the decision to the House of Lords?

    Remember the assurances that were given that the MOD would not seek to reinterpret the judgement?

    Well, the MOD have done precisely that and like Blair who set a precedent in flouting the rule of international law, for organs of state subject to domestic law to follow, such as the Home Office who followed the lead by perverting the judgement against them in the cases of detention without trial?

    It is now the turn of the MOD to follow the precedent in simply ignoring rule of law:,,1796264,00.html

    Let no soldier, ex soldier or, more importantly, potential recruit, be left in any doubt whatsoever, illustrated here with crystal clarity, as to the official contempt in which he is held by his own government comprising individual Ministers, Treasury Officials, Senior Civil Servants and Forensic Accountants!
  2. snooty email to MP on the way
  3. Looks like a case for judicial review.
  4. Before I forget. Go to Find your MP, email him with a copy of the link and inform him that he will ask in the House of Commons that the Minister resposnible for this department will answer the question "On what grounds do you believe you can order that the ruling of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal be set aside without further Court action?"
  5. Judicial review does, of course have it's advantages!

    The advantages, of course, lie with the MOD with deep pockets (yours - the taxpayer)) and infinite patience ranged against a group of impoverished and gradually dying litigants who. more often than not, need to accept a charging order over their homes to meet the cost of bringing such an action.

    in M v Home Office [1994] AC 377 the House of Lords made it clear that Ministers are subject to the ordinary law and can be subject to compulsory orders such as injunctions and mandamus and can be liable for contempt of court.

    If the rule of law is to have any meaning at all, the Minister should be held personally liable for contempt of court should he fail to fully implement the judgement arrived at by the tribunal.
  6. Sorry the link is not quite right..Found my MP letter sent.
  7. Of course, in that case, IIRC the courts judgement came too late didn't it. M had already been sent abroad and was never found.

    Re the rule of law, I prefer Entick v Carrington, 1765, per LCJ Lord Camden:
    I think the ministers concerned are morally obligated to point out what law allows them to ignore the justice system. I am not hold my breath in anticipation though!
  8. Thank you Scabster,

    Of course, what comes out of M, the case in which the Home Office ignored the most senior judges in the land to find and return an illegally deported immigrant they had deported in violation of a court order not to, does not affect the judgement of the House of Lords. Even before it reached the House of Lords, Nolan LJ said this:

    "The proper constitutional relationship of the executive with the courts is that the courts will respect all acts of the executive within it's lawful province and that the executive will respect all decisions of the courts as to what is its lawful province."

    The minister is bound to implement the tribunal decision in full and cannot derogate from it by seeking to place a 'gloss' upon it's judgement. Should he fail to do so, then he, as a Minister is hoist to the petard of that which the executive, through the Attorney General seeks to hold accountable those on TELIC accused of abuse of the rule of law in a series of failed actions against soldiers both in the Criminal Court and through DCM.

    The Government cannot have it both ways, it cannot, on the one hand claim that soldiers are subject to the rule of law while, at the same time, seeking to ignore judgements in the domestic courts it finds inconveniently expensive.

    Entic v Carrington is, of course, a case of respectable antiquity and remains good law to this day, insofar as it has not been replaced by statute.