header-logo header-logo

21 April 2021
Issue: 7929 / Categories: Legal News , Military , Criminal , International justice
printer mail-detail

Parliament gets tough on Overseas Operations Bill

MPs and peers went into battle this week over the government’s controversial Bill to limit soldiers’ accountability for war crimes.

The Lords made extensive amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, including removing a six-year time limit for civil claims against the Ministry of Defence (MoD); excluding war crimes and genocide from the presumption against prosecution; and adding a clause to impose a duty of care on the Ministry of Defence for veterans and service personnel involved in investigations and litigation relating to overseas operations.

The bill returned to the House of Commons this week, with the government expected to mount a staunch defence.

Amnesty International UK director Kate Allen has called on MPs to ‘drop the bill altogether’.

A YouGov Direct poll commissioned by the Law Society, and published this week, found the public overwhelmingly (96%) backs the British military being held to the same (71%) or higher (25%) legal standards as the average citizen. 94% of people said they think it is important the UK is seen as a country which upholds the law.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘The UK is obliged by international law to investigate and prosecute well-evidenced serious offences committed during overseas operations.

‘No other serious crime, let alone crimes against humanity or torture, has a limitation period and no exception should be introduced. If the UK is seen to set itself outside internationally agreed standards, it risks fuelling a culture of impunity, undermining its global standing, its ability to hold other states to account and longstanding international cooperation practices.’

Boyce said the proposal to put a time limit on compensation claims against the MoD could prevent Armed Forces personnel, other MoD employees and civilians getting compensation for injuries and medical conditions caused by military activities. She said: ‘We believe this would be a gross injustice both to those who have dedicated their lives to their country and to innocent victims.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll