Key Takeaways
- The law imposes a clear duty on commanding officers to report suspected crimes, including murder, to the Royal Military Police.
- A former SAS soldier, N1466, reported evidence of suspected war crimes to the director of special forces in 2011, but it was not referred to the Royal Military Police until 2015.
- The delay in reporting the evidence may have contributed to further unnecessary deaths, including the fatal shooting of two young parents and the wounding of their infant sons in an SAS raid in 2012.
- The former director of special forces who took over in 2012 claims that the allegations made by N1466 were refuted and that he was not aware of any evidence of unlawful killings during his time in charge.
Introduction to the Inquiry
The BBC has reported on a disturbing case involving the Special Air Service (SAS) and the handling of suspected war crimes in Afghanistan. Bruce Houlder KC, a former director of service prosecutions, has stated that the law clearly requires commanding officers to report suspected crimes, including murder, to the Royal Military Police. This duty is not only a moral obligation but also a legal requirement, and failure to comply can have severe consequences. The case in question involves a former SAS soldier, N1466, who reported evidence of suspected war crimes to the director of special forces in 2011, but it was not referred to the Royal Military Police until 2015.
The Failure to Report
N1466’s decision to report the evidence directly to the Royal Military Police in 2015, nearly four years after he first raised his concerns, has been described as "a matter of great regret" by the soldier himself. He has expressed his regret for not going to the Royal Military Police sooner and for not urging the director to refer the evidence to them. This delay may have contributed to further unnecessary deaths, including the fatal shooting of two young parents and the wounding of their infant sons in an SAS raid in Nimruz province in August 2012. The raid, which was first uncovered by the BBC, was never reported to the military police, and it is unclear what factors contributed to this failure.
The Response of the Director Special Forces
The director who took over in 2012 has responded to the allegations made by N1466, stating that they were refuted and that he would provide a comprehensive response to each of these matters in his evidence to the inquiry in due course. He also claimed that none of his senior commanders expressed any concerns or produced any evidence of unlawful killings at any stage of his three years in charge. Furthermore, he stated that there was no allegation or evidence he was aware of to refer to the Royal Military Police. However, these claims are at odds with N1466’s testimony, and it remains to be seen how the inquiry will reconcile these conflicting accounts.
The Broader Implications
The case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability within the military, particularly when it comes to the handling of suspected war crimes. The failure to report the evidence in a timely manner may have contributed to further unnecessary deaths, and it is essential that the military takes steps to prevent such failures in the future. The inquiry will likely examine the circumstances surrounding the failure to report the evidence and the response of the director special forces to the allegations made by N1466. The outcome of the inquiry will be closely watched, and it is hoped that it will provide a thorough and impartial examination of the events in question.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case of N1466 and the handling of suspected war crimes in Afghanistan raises serious concerns about the military’s accountability and transparency. The law is clear that commanding officers have a duty to report suspected crimes, including murder, to the Royal Military Police. The failure to comply with this duty can have severe consequences, including the loss of lives. It is essential that the military takes steps to prevent such failures in the future and that those responsible for the failure to report the evidence are held accountable. The inquiry will play a crucial role in examining the circumstances surrounding the case and providing a thorough and impartial examination of the events in question.