Page 24 - AGC25_Magazine_FINAL_Full_PDF_Classical

..................................................................................................................
ADJUTANT GENERAL’S CORPS
25th ANNIVERSARY

Army Legal Services

By Captain Joel Lowry

The period in question has to more refinement and ultimately the
seen enormous change in enactment of the Armed Forces Act
the Army Legal Services, 2006 which is still in force today.
both in terms of ‘domestic’ Recruiting
work, and on operations.
The largest influence on The Army Legal Services braced itself
change was brought about for the changes and increased appetite
for legal advice by recruiting what was
by the increased influence then the largest intake of officers in its
and applicability of the history in 1998, which consisted of no
European Convention less than 3 ‘Davies’ amongst its intake
of Human Rights, and Major General A P V Rogers OBE of 11 officers. This year also saw the
50th anniversary of the Army Legal
decisions from the Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) because, Services, celebrated by a lavish dinner
European Court of Human among other things, it did not provide at Lincolns Inn, with the Colonel in
Rights. him with an independent and impartial Chief, the Duchess of Gloucester, the
tribunal established by law. The role of Master of the Rolls and the Attorney,
European Court of Human the Convening Officer, (under the Army who personally welcomed the Davies
Rights Act of 1955) and the independence family to the Army Legal Services.
of the Prosecuting Authority were
Prior to October 2000, an individual questioned and applicable rules Evolution
could only bring an action under the of procedure to determine if those
European Court of Human Rights procedures complied with the European In the last 25 years the Army Legal
once all domestic remedies had been Convention. Ultimately, the court ruled Services has certainly evolved,
exhausted. One such case Findlay in Finlay’s favour and criticised the developing its role(s), to fit the needs
v. United Kingdom, challenged the Military Justice system for not being of the Army, by evolving into three
existing Courts Martial system under compatible with article 6. distinct pillars: Prosecutions, Advisory
Armed Forces Act

The Armed Forces Act 1996
introduced measures to safeguard the
independence of the system, thus an
independent Prosecution Authority was
established. Hitherto, advisory officers
would take a case from investigation
all the way through to trial. A separate
Prosecution Branch was established
ensuring independence, with offices
in the United Kingdom (Uxbridge)
and Germany (Bielefeld). Subsequent
Major General M H F Clarke Major General D M Howell CB OBE
changes due to further challenges led

24

*25th layout.indd 24 05/06/2018 11:08