Thanks BAFF for the ongoing coverage of the Troubles Bill and related muddles. As the Federation's original chairman and currently assisting with the ongoing BAFF restructuring, I thought it would be worth reminding ourselves of the Federation's position over the years on the applicability of law to military operations - and especially on so-called 'legacy investigations' taking place years after the alleged events. 

Other organisations will have their own points of view, but the basic priorities for a representative membership body like BAFF are the legitimate interests of our members and, by extension, the generality of armed forces serving personnel and veterans.

It's common enough on social media and news-media reader pages to see comments like 'I have never been in the military so it's not for me to judge their actions' - while in effect actually making a judgement.

For our part, we have never argued that while troops are on operations, 'anything goes'.

A BAFF spokesman made these comments to the BBC Today programme in June 2011 about the Iraq Historic Allegations Inquiry (IHAT) :

The people making these accusations have to put up or shut up. It is almost impossible to imagine that justice can be done after the amount of time that has passed. Our members are wondering about the motivation of this inquiry. Is it a sop to 'Human Rights' opinion, or is it actually aimed towards reaching a conclusion?

 [BAFF link]

And in September 2011 our spokesman was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph:

Obviously any allegations of misconduct against members of the Armed Forces need to be taken seriously and properly investigated.

Our concern is that some of the allegations being investigated by IHAT have little or no evidential basis and that even if there were indications that something had occurred, it is now far too long after the events for there to be any realistic chance of a just resolution.

What we cannot condone is a 'fishing expedition’ by IHAT in which service personnel are asked to inform on each other.

BAFF takes the view that the work of IHAT should be reviewed by an outside authority, and that if it is determined that the investigations are unlikely to result in prosecutions, IHAT should be disbanded and a line drawn under its work.

[BAFF link]

We didn't confine ourselves to comment, but set up a package of basic initial professional advice from an English law firm for any BAFF member approached by the IHAT or Northmoor investigators, even as a witness.

Speaking personally, I welcome The Telegraph's campaign on these issues, as I did in 2011. Currently we're seeing a daily round of distinguished contributors on that subject, and it is The Telegraph which  the latest being Gen David Petraeus US Army (retired), a true friend of the British military.

Again speaking personally, I don't agree with every single sentence which has been written in an effort to bolster the campaign. What gets labelled 'lawfare' isn't always a wicked campaign against British forces.

Sometimes we might be risking the suspicion that 'The lady doth protest too much.' General Petraeus, however, makes strong points which I would like to say more.

I'm not quite sure why this has come to mind today. Maybe it's because I attended a recent ceremony marking the 35th anniversary of the end of active operations in the Gulf; Op Granby to the Brits, Desert Storm to our major allies.

But Ive been refreshing my memory on something that happened in that conflict. A strategic bridge over the wide Euphrates river was repeatedly attacked by coalition aircraft because it was part of an Iraqi military supply line, and was therefore a legitimate target even though it was close to a population centre.

On 14 February 1991 a Royal Air Force Tornado GR1 aircraft fired two laser-guided bombs which were aimed at the bridge. Due to a malfunction, at least one bomb failed to pick up the guidance and continued past the intended aiming point and instead struck a crowded marketplace, killing between 50 and 150 non-combatants and wounding many more.

Civilian casualties caused by coalition air operations were already under intense scrutiny, as the incident happened only the day after the widely publicised Al-Amiriyah shelter bombing in Baghdad (13 February 1991) by U.S. aircraft. Neverthelss, the facts of the Fallujah mistake being clear, the RAF spokesman Group Captain David Henderson issued a statement within hours that the bomb had malfunctioned and failed to follow its laser guidance, and acknowledged that the RAF had made an error.

This acknowledgement was widely reported by British media and praised shortly afterwards in the House of Commons. Other than a few of the usual suspects describing the event as 'an atrocity', later criticism by organisations such as Human Rights Watch concentrated on the fact that so-called "smart weapons" such as laser-guided bombs were not as reliable as they were being often portrayed at the time, and should therefore be employed with more caution.

I remember much of this because at the time I was serving with British forces preparing in the desert for the coming ground war. We had every reason to welcome any damage done to Iraqi military forces and their ability to manoevre and resupply. But in this case the technical error was clear and the presentational damage would have been far greater if it had not been admitted. The RAF's prompt statement seemed to me and, I think, many of my comrades as exactly right.

Of course the circumstances and responsibility (if any) for unintended civilian deaths can be far more complicated than what happened at Fallujah. Investigation can be challenging amid the fog of war; 'the first report is always wrong'. Nevertheless, knee-jerk denial without the facts can do far more reputational damage than an honest undertaking to investigate.

The Labour Party's 2024 General Election manifesto included a commitment to "strengthen support for our Armed Forces communities by putting the Armed Forces Covenant fully into law", and in June 2025 following a Defence Committee report on the Armed Forces Covenant, the Government committed to extending the Covenant’s Legal Duty to all UK Government departments and the devolved administrations.

Specifically, the Armed Forces Bill now before Parliament would extend the Covenant Legal Duty to cover all UK Government Departments, all Devolved Governments (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), and the following wide policy areas:

• Housing
• Education
• Healthcare
• Social care
• Childcare
• Employment and service in the armed forces
• Personal taxation
• Welfare benefits
• Criminal justice
• Immigration
• Citizenship
• Pensions
• Service-related compensation
• Transport

The Ministry of Defence has announced that for the first time, free, independent legal advice will be available to victim-survivors of rape and sexual offences (allegedly) committed by Service personnel or a civilian subject to Service Discipline that are being investigated by the Service Justice System.

The Independent Legal Advocacy (ILA) support programme pilot will, from Spring 2026, provide impartial legal support to any such victim-survivors aged 18 or over, irrespective of whether they themselves are Service personnel or civilians.

Veterans & People Minister Louise Sandher-Jones said that anyone who reports a sexual offence or rape allegedly committed by a service person, or civilians subject to Service Law, and is being investigated by the Service Justice System, will qualify for support.

She told BFBS Forces News: "At the moment as a victim the kind of support that you will access through the military will be mostly that which focuses on pastoral. So, for example, our Victims and Witnesses Care Unit is mostly focused on pastoral support to you as a victim.

"What this independent legal advocacy system will do is provide you with free legal advice so you're able to understand the process that is in front of you, what decisions to make and have the confidence to know that what you're doing is the right thing for you."

The MOD is in the process of choosing a law firm to provide the legal advisers. The programme is set to begin in the spring and will initially run as a 12-month pilot.

Comment: The announcement follows huge concern over cases such as Gunner Jaysley-Louise Beck, the 19-year-old British Army soldier whose death by suicide in 2021 has triggered major scrutiny into the handling of sexual assault and harassment complaints within the military. It will be interesting to know what areas of expert legal advice would be covered by the scheme, but no doubt it will include help to navigate a victim's journey through the service justice system as a complainant and witness.

The need remains for any service personnel suspected of, or charged with, serious crimes to have access to expert legal advice and representation from the earliest stage of their case.