|
The Ministry of Defence has announced today, Wednesday 14 May 2008, that a Public Inquiry will be held into the death of Baha Mousa, who died in British custody in September 2003.  Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, talks to the trainees from the Infantry Battle School (November 2007)
[Picture: Stuart Bingham (MOD)] The scope of the Inquiry is still under consideration and details will be made public once they have been established. Findings of the Inquiry will also be published once it has been concluded. Defence Secretary, Des Browne, said of today's announcement: "A Public Inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa is the right thing to do. It will reassure the public that we are leaving no stone unturned in investigating his tragic death. The Army has nothing to hide in this respect and is keen to learn all the lessons it can from this terrible incident." Mr Browne has also issued the following Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament regarding the Public Inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa: "In my statement of 25 January, I promised to make an announcement once I had reached a decision on what form any future inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Baha Mousa in Iraq in September 2003 might take. "After wide consultation and after considering the representations that I have received, with the full support of the military chain of command, including the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the General Staff, I have decided that the right thing to do is to establish a Public Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The inquiry will examine the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha Mousa. The Terms of Reference and other details will be made public once they have been established in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the inquiry report will be published. "This reinforces my determination, and that of the Chief of the General Staff, to do everything we can to understand how it came to be that Mr Mousa lost his life. The Army has no wish to hide anything in this respect. It has looked at itself very critically since 2003, and has made a number of significant changes that were enumerated in Brigadier Aitken's report of January this year. It nevertheless remains anxious to learn all the lessons that it possibly can from this disturbing incident. "Overall, the conduct of tens of thousands of our people in Iraq has been exemplary; it is a tiny number who have caused a stain on the reputation of the British Army. But that does not mean we can allow these events to pass without looking into them thoroughly. "I hope this independent inquiry will reassure the public that no stone has been left unturned. The Army and the Ministry of Defence will be giving the fullest co-operation to this inquiry." "A Public Inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa is the right thing to do. It will reassure the public that we are leaving no stone unturned in investigating his tragic death. The Army has nothing to hide in this respect and is keen to learn all the lessons it can from this terrible incident." Defence Secretary Des Browne Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, also issued the following statement following today's announcement:
"The British Army in Iraq has performed exceptionally well under extraordinarily testing conditions and of that there is no doubt. But in September 2003, a number of Iraqi civilians were arrested and taken into custody by soldiers from the 1st Battalion The Queen's Lancashire Regiment. One of those civilians, Mr Baha Mousa, died while being held in Army detention and the subsequent post mortem examination showed that he had suffered asphyxiation and some 93 injuries to his body. "Ever since Mr Baha Mousa died, my predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson and I have been determined to establish how and why this occurred. The Army has a duty to investigate all serious cases of abuse and this incident has been subject to the most intensive investigation. The Court Martial of Corporal Payne and others last year and the publication of the Aitken Report earlier this year have gone some way to shed light on this disgraceful incident; the Aitken Report in particular was rightly critical of the Army in certain areas and revealed a number of important lessons to be learned which we have taken steps already to put right. I am therefore confident that all soldiers deploying on operations now are fully trained in their legal responsibilities, in particular concerning the humane treatment of detainees. "But we cannot escape the fact that, there are important questions that have yet to be answered in connection with Mr Baha Mousa's death. Although the Aitken Report identified important lessons to be learned, it was not able to fully explain how and why these circumstances occurred and I therefore welcome the announcement today by the Secretary of State for Defence of a Public Inquiry that will examine all the circumstances leading up to and surrounding, the death of Mr Baha Mousa. The terms of the reference of the Public Inquiry will be announced in due course and the Army will give the fullest cooperation. There is no wish to hide anything in the Inquiry's quest to understand and report on what happened. "As soldiers, we know only too well that the conduct of military operations is both difficult and dangerous but we also know that it is our duty to behave in accordance with both the law and the Army's core values. These core values include courage, integrity and discipline as well as loyalty, selfless commitment and crucially in this case - respect for others. The Army's operational effectiveness and reputation depend on this. "And whilst the Army is an extremely professional war-fighting force, committed to campaigns in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a small number of individuals have let us down and we need to understand how and why this came about. All our soldiers know that collectively and individually, we can, and should, be called to account when things go wrong. Our perseverance in this case should therefore come as no surprise and I welcome the transparency that a Public Inquiry will provide. "As Chief of the General Staff and in all my previous appointments, I have made it clear that I expect all commanders to set an example to their subordinates, and to provide the leadership and supervision that will ensure the delivery of the required outcomes, as well as professional behaviour. The Army knows that Mr Baha Mousa should have been treated properly and lawfully but he was not. "This was not a case of misjudgment in the heat of battle, or in the heat of the moment. There can be no excuse. We have a genuinely world class reputation and therefore I am determined that we must never allow a few of our people to damage the reputation of the majority in this manner again. That is why I welcome the announcement of the Public Inquiry today as the right thing to do as we endeavour to find out how and why it came to be that Mr Baha Mousa died in September 2003." "Ever since Mr Baha Mousa died, my predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson and I have been determined to establish how and why this occurred. The Army has a duty to investigate all serious cases of abuse and this incident has been subject to the most intensive investigation." Chief of the General Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt Frequently Asked Questions Will this mean there will be further criminal prosecution following the Inquiry?
It is not appropriate to speculate on what the inquiry might conclude or what action might follow. The inquiry has no power to determine criminal liability. This will be a formal inquiry under the Inquiries Act into how and why Baha Mousa died. The Inquiries Act 2005 makes this clear. It states:
No determination of liability
(1) An inquiry panel is not to rule on, and has no power to determine, any person's civil or criminal liability.
(2) But an inquiry panel is not to be inhibited in the discharge of its functions by any likelihood of liability being inferred from facts that it determines or recommendations that it makes. Why did we not have a Board of Inquiry?
We considered this. A Board of Inquiry under the Army Act would also have allowed us to look thoroughly into these issues; but in this case it was decided that a Public Inquiry under a judge would offer an extra degree of public re-assurance, given the intense interest in this case. Does this mean the Court Martial was flawed?
No. The Court Martial, presided over by a High Court Judge, was lengthy, open, and took a view based upon evidence as would any other criminal trial. We have always said that it is disappointing that we still do not understand everything that happened. It is not the role of the Inquiry to repeat the Court Martial. The Army has yet to decide whether administrative action will be taken. News Source: http://www.mod.uk/ |
