Reasons why Jonny Mercer's Overseas Operations Bill is flawed. Thread.

1. The Bill is based on a false premise that ‘vexatious’ claims against service personnel are many & frequent, and that by making the prosecution of troops ‘exceptional’ after five years, the Bill will provide soldiers with greater certainty they will not be reinvestigated...

However, i) the Bill does not address investigations and ii) since 2000, only 27 service personnel/veterans have been prosecuted for conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan, 8 were convicted.

2. The Bill does not solve the problem, namely flawed investigations. It should, at its heart, have the need to ensure independent, comprehensive and swift investigations at the time of knowledge of an allegation.

3. Part 1 risks that the most serious crimes under international law, including torture, will go unpunished; undermines the principles of equality and fairness before the law; may undermine international law; risks the UK violating its legal obligations...

and; may encourage copycat legislation (Nicholas Mercer). Torture, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide should be added to the Bill’s list of exclusions.

4. Part 2 of the Bill only benefits the MOD, as argued by the Royal British Legion. It limits soldiers’ abilities to make claims against the MOD for wrongful injury or death, and civilians’ ability to make claims against the MOD for institutional flaws in policy and practice ...

that have caused them harm. In fact, the existing legal framework already has stricter time limits than the Bill, but importantly provides judges with the discretion to extend these when they deem the reason for delay is good.

5. Most witnesses called for the Bill to be stopped and redrafted to address the root problem - flawed investigations. This, they argued, would necessitate a much broader consultation into investigations and related issues.