This is the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. We have three witness panels this afternoon. This is our first panel. We have been using first names on this Committee—is that all right with you?

Certainly.

Will you introduce yourself?

My name is Jonathan. I am the acting Service Police Complaints Commissioner.

You are very welcome. Thank you for coming to give evidence this afternoon.

Could you give us your view on the progress made by the service justice system on the treatment of victims of service offenders?

Certainly. Just to give a bit of context, prior to becoming the acting Commissioner I was Director of Service Prosecutions, the head of the Service Prosecuting Authority, for five years. I had a good opportunity to see the advances that have been made, and they have been significant. During the last six years, we have seen the introduction of the Victim Witness Care Unit under the Defence Serious Crime Command. The Service Prosecuting Authority introduced a prosecution witness liaison unit, which provides support and information at court. We have seen an increase in orders being made for special measures to help victims to give their evidence in court. Communications—letters written to victims—are key, and they have improved significantly, certainly during the six years that I have been involved in communications with victims. They have been given a voice and are listened to more closely. The lessons that have been learned through Operation Soteria Bluestone have been put into practice. For example, the SPA introduced two specific RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—teams to deal with that sort of work. We introduced someone with huge experience from the CPS to quality-assure the work we did in that area, particularly with victims. There has been a huge amount of progress, all to the good, obviously. It came to the point where the CPS inspectorate came to look at the way the SPA worked. It produced a report in November 2024 that commented on the way that we dealt with victims and said that, overall, we gave a better service than they had in the civilian justice system. That was extremely pleasing.

Is it your feeling that the role of the Commissioner has been significant in all the progress you have described?

I am not sure that I could claim that. Plainly, we are there to deal with complaints that arise. When our investigators produce reports, they always look at whether any lessons can be learned in respect of dealing with vulnerable persons—victims and witnesses in a certain category. We have an opportunity to improve matters, but I think things were going well before I came into the job. Looking back on the investigation reports, the service justice system was doing a good job before mid-2023 when this office was stood up.

Can I ask about victims? You say that you have improved the treatment of victims, but how do you assess victims’ views on whether the service has improved?

Going back to when I was Director of Service Prosecutions, one of the great things about the introduction of the Victim Witness Care Unit was that you had a conduit for exchanging views. If a victim had a complaint, a concern or a worry about how they were being treated, the onus was not put on them to communicate with us; it was done through liaison officers at the VWCU. That certainly facilitated communication. Where victims make complaints to us, plainly we have an opportunity to investigate that complaint to see whether it is made out or not, and to make certain recommendations. But I am bound to say that, in the last two years of data, we have had only seven complaints about police investigations from victims. Broadly speaking, I am drawing on my experience of being Director of Service Prosecutions to say how that has improved.

Has the proportion of cases in which victims have made complaints reduced?

To put it in context, we deal with complaints that are made about service police officers. Over the last two years, there have been 20 complaints made about investigations—leaving aside when people make complaints because they say they have been the victim of an offence or misconduct by a service police officer. We have had 20 complaints about how things have been investigated. The majority were from those who were the subject of the investigation—those whose conduct had been investigated. Seven were from what, using the terminology of the Bill, you would broadly describe as victims, and they were to do with not applying the right legal framework, not pursuing reasonable lines of inquiry and, in one case that we have just reviewed, delay. The Office of the Commissioner has given victims a voice to make complaints where service police officers are said to have fallen below standards, but previously, it is the introduction of the prosecution witness liaison unit and, more particularly, the VWCU that have really given victims a voice, because they are proactive in what they do. Everybody who prosecutes wants victims to feel comfortable and engaged with the prosecution process.

Good afternoon, Jonathan. I am going to ask a follow-up about victims. The protocol requires prosecutors to seek assurances that victims have been asked whether they prefer service or civilian jurisdiction. From your experience, how meaningful is that consultation in reality, and what safeguards are needed to ensure that a victim’s preference genuinely informs decision making, rather than it just being a procedural formality?

I am the person to ask about that. This is all about the concurrent jurisdiction protocol between the SPA and the CPS as to which jurisdiction is the most appropriate for a case to be prosecuted. Part of the decision takes account of the views expressed by victims. The evidence I have for saying that it is meaningful is that I did two dip samples during my tenure as Director of Service Prosecutions, and I looked at 60 cases in total. These were cases where you had to have mandatory consultation—consultation between the CPS and the SPA. One of the things we looked at was the victim’s preference. In the vast majority of cases, they were asked their view. In I think all but one of the cases, the chosen jurisdiction coincided with the preference of the victim—I use the word “preference” broadly—or with the victim saying that they were content for it to be prosecuted in a certain jurisdiction. I suppose the most telling point is that in two or three cases—do not quote me on that, but I can think of two or three cases—where a victim has said, “No, I want it prosecuted in the civilian justice system”, that has been determinative. So even though the case might have started off in the service justice system, being investigated by the service police or having been transferred to the SPA to prosecute, where a victim has said, “No, I want it prosecuted in one jurisdiction or another”—but generally the civilian criminal justice system—that has been determinative. That is because of the point I made to the Chair earlier: you want victims to be engaged. No one wants to see a victim miserable because they have expressed a view and it has not been followed. The duty is really to take it into consideration, but it is such an important factor that it carries a lot of weight. What was the second part of the question?

You have answered it, really, in what you said about the victim’s desire to choose being listened to. Do you think the Bill as presented is robust enough, or do you think this should be absolutely, 100%, the victim’s choice?

It is certainly not 100% the victim’s choice. It is a factor. There are principles that generally point in one direction or the other. The main principle is that if there is a civilian interest that has been harmed, so a civilian victim or property, prosecution of service personnel generally stays in the civilian jurisdiction. You then have a whole host of other factors you take into consideration, one of which is the views expressed by the victim. As I said, and for the reasons I have given, that is accorded weight. I know there is a clause in the Bill, because the Commissioner is a consultee, whereby the Secretary of State will issue guidance about what information should be given to the victim before they express a final view on which jurisdiction they should have. I think that is generally a good idea, because one of the weaknesses of the current system is that you get a tick to say that the victim has been spoken to and asked to express a view, but you do not have the full reasoning. I think it is important that, after the victim has made a choice, they are invited to give their reasons, so that you can see the choice is informed by factors that matter. I think the clause in the Bill is a good one, but there are difficulties with it. Some of the information you can give victims is relatively straightforward—so the similarities and differences between the two systems. But the sort of information—I am speaking to an expert—that I think a victim would like to know is about backlogs and waiting times. I think you have to be careful how you couch that, because they vary around the country. The second thing, which would be hugely contentious, is whether you give them information about conviction rates. I think that would have to be caveated with so many separate pieces of information that I am not sure it would be an easy thing to achieve.

Could you give the Committee an example of where the victim’s choice would not necessarily be accepted?

I can, because there is one example that sticks out very much in my mind. This was a case of rape—a female victim making an allegation of rape against a serviceperson. The victim was asked where she would prefer the case to be dealt with—which jurisdiction—and she said the service justice system. But we learned, if we didn’t know before, that the same serviceperson was being tried in the civilian jurisdiction for a rape of a different person. As a barrister, I can tell you that the case is so much stronger when you try both together, because two or more people basically singing from the same hymn sheet makes it evidentially that much stronger. That was an example where, even though the victim expressed a view that they would prefer the case to be dealt with in the service jurisdiction, it wasn’t, but it was explained to her and she understood. Of course, if you explain that both cases tried together might actually make the case on your rape stronger, then—

Will the victims code of practice deliver improvements in this area?

I think I am right in saying that there is already an armed forces code of practice, which I think was issued in 2015. I think a new code of practice is due to be issued in both jurisdictions, actually. Even though a recent code of practice has been issued in the civilian jurisdiction, it is being looked at again. At the heart of it are the 12 principles. In my view, there is no point reinventing the wheel. If there is something good that works in the civilian jurisdiction, generally it works quite well in our jurisdiction. It transfers across. To the extent that the 12 principles embedded in the current civilian victims code are not represented and will bolster the 2015 code, then I think, yes, there is room for it to be improved.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Thank you for being with us today. We talked a bit about this in relation to the previous question, but how do you think clause 25 of the Bill will improve victims’ experience of the service justice system?

There are two things. The most obvious point to make is that it makes victims feel enfranchised: that they are part of the process and their voice is being heard. It also gives victims more confidence that they are making decisions based on all the information, some of which may not be known to them. If you imagine the position where someone is reporting a serious sexual offence shortly after it is alleged to have occurred—they may have had samples taken from them and all that sort of thing—you would obviously be worried about a choice made there, where someone had not had an opportunity to hear all the factors they ought to hear about the differences between the two jurisdictions. They may also not be in a state to take in the information they are given. Under clause 25—I was involved in the discussions when it was being talked about in the Service Justice Board—I think what is being envisaged is that, at a certain time, when a victim is in a position to take in the information, they will be given information that otherwise they might not be expected to know. I am not completely confident that now, when victims make choices, they are given all the information that they ought to be given. As I understand it, there will be a consultation about what guidance should be given to them, and I think that gives victims far more confidence in the choice they have made. They are likely to be more engaged with the process and the jurisdiction in which the case is being tried.

Can you give us an example of the type of information they would be given that they were not given before?

I believe that at the moment there is no prescriptive guidance as to what information they should be given. I should add immediately that I have never been there when a victim has been asked about their preferred jurisdiction, so I do not know how that conversation goes. Someone else who has seen or experienced that may be in a better position to tell you. There are similarities and differences. To give an example of a similarity, I was talking earlier about the sorts of orders that can be made to help victims to give their best evidence—they apply in both courts. An example of an obvious difference is that a case that goes to court martial will be tried in front of a board, but the other sort will be tried in front of a jury. Another similarity is that victim care is provided in both jurisdictions, so you are given support and people will explain the process to you. Those are things that they can be told. The hard stuff is whether you also give them information about backlogs, but I spoke to someone yesterday who has spent a long time supporting victims, and I was told that is exactly the sort of information they would like to have. They want to know how long before their rape trial comes up—three years or 12 months? It is very difficult to see an argument against that, as long as the information is accurate and caveated in any way that people see fit. There has been a huge argument about conviction rates, because the civilian justice system and the service justice system measure and express conviction rates in different ways. Introducing a victim to the nuances of all that is quite a tough job, and I am not sure how helpful it is, but there will be people who would argue for it.

That brings us to the chain of command. We know that commanding officers have the power to investigate and decide on minor disciplinary and criminal offences at summary hearings. I draw your attention to clause 17, which would require commanding officers to report a serious offence to the service police, regardless of whether the individual is in their immediate chain of command. Do you think that addresses the concerns about the independence of the service justice and complaints system?

I am not sure whether it is there to address that, but I certainly think it is a good idea. I would be surprised if anybody argued against clause 17. I will come back to the second part of your question, if I may, because I think one feeds into the other. The important thing is that it means that certain cases involving schedule 2 offences—the most serious offences—are unlikely to fall through the cracks. For example, you may have a victim serving in an area that is not the area where her commanding officer is in charge, so it might be difficult for her to go and speak to the CO, who may also be the CO of the person who is alleged to have committed some sort of offence. Addressing that is a good thing. You are saying that all people in a command position, if they are aware of a serviceperson who, on the face of it, may have committed a schedule 2 offence, ought to report it. It is surprising that you even need the clause, because it is difficult to argue against it. The important thing about it is that it gives a perception that a case will not fall through the cracks because the CO did not report it for some reason—perhaps because that person was not in his chain of command, or because he was seeking to protect the perpetrator or whatever it may be. I am not aware of that happening, but I use it to illustrate the point. I think clause 17 is a good clause. There should be a duty on all commanding officers, as defined in the Bill, to report schedule 2 offences—unless, of course, they think the police are already investigating, which I think is one of the things that allows them not to do so.

Do you have a view on whether this duty is adequate to make sure that commanding officers take their responsibilities seriously? More important, what consequences are there if they do not report an offence?

The fact that the clause is introduced will resonate among commanding officers, as they will know that their duty extends beyond those servicepersons in their charge. I do not think there is a sanction in the clause itself, but there is a service offence under the Armed Forces Act 2006 of failing to perform a duty, so there is an offence. If you fail to perform a duty without a reasonable excuse, that itself constitutes a service offence. If you are a CO and you are aware of that duty and you see a person who is subject to service law who has, on the face of it, committed an offence—even if they are not in your chain of command—you will be aware that you stand to be investigated for failing to perform a duty should it all come out. It is an important clause.

In your experience, have you come across an instance when the commanding officer tried to keep it quiet?

I am aware of cases where that has been the allegation, but I cannot think of any clear examples from when I was Director of Service Prosecutions. That is not to say that such a case has not come through the Service Prosecuting Authority. I do not know enough about the cases to speak about them, but there might have been a suggestion that that was at play in recent cases dealt with by the Service Prosecuting Authority.

Clause 12 is to do with the service policing protocol. The aim is to improve the working relationship between the Secretary of State, the Defence Council, service police and the Defence Serious Crime Unit. In your view, what should be included in the service policing protocol to make it more effective?

Clause 12 was not highlighted as one of the matters that the Committee might wish to ask me about, so I have looked only briefly at the terms of the clause. It is all about making sure that “improper pressure” is not placed on provost marshals when they are conducting an investigation. I believe that is the term used in section 115A of the Armed Forces Act. I am not quite sure what has given rise to the suggestion that we have a protocol, nor am I aware of the cases where it might have been suggested that other provost marshals or other bodies have placed pressure on a provost marshal to direct an investigation in a certain way. I realise that I was caught by the duty, because one of the first things you learn as Director of Service Prosecutions is that you have to distinguish between giving advice to service police about how they conduct an investigation and seeking to direct an investigation. As Director of Service Prosecutions, I cannot tell service police officers how to conduct their investigations. It is a matter for them. To the extent that a protocol is required, it is to reinforce that duty—to make sure that the relationships between the provost marshal for serious crime, who sits behind me, the provost marshals of the three single service police forces and the other people—is that the Defence Council and the Secretary of State? I think they are also involved—are not relationships where, effectively, improper pressure is exerted in respect of how to conduct an investigation. To that extent, it is obviously a good idea. I am bound to say that I was never aware of an example that I thought would require that clause.

Do you think it is unnecessary?

I would not say that because it might just be my ignorance. I do not want to burden Brigadier Rotchell any more than he needs to be burdened, because it will plainly affect him and his position. He will give you a better and fuller answer on why that protocol may be required and whether he thinks it is necessary. I am sorry that I cannot give a fuller answer.

What is your view on the working professional relationship between service and civilian police? If you believe some of the programmes or documentaries we see on television, it is not necessarily the best relationship at times. Is there a strong professional relationship between service police and civilian forces?

Again, that is not really my area of expertise. Within the protocol, I know that service and civilian police forces are quite often required to work together in the first 24 to 48 hours after an incident is reported—to talk about jurisdiction or hand over investigations, for example. I know that service police forces are used when there has been a death or serious injury—that may not be the precise terminology—on MOD land. I always found it surprising that the local constabulary have primacy—under a very old MoU, if there is an incident with a tank on MOD land and someone gets hurt. They are used to working together to achieve the right result, and I am not aware of any huge friction. In my role as Service Police Complaints Commissioner, I often get reports of incidents—we call them conduct matters—where, for example, a serviceperson has got into a fight in Colchester or something, and he has been arrested by the civilian police. There is no fight for the service police to get hold of that. To the limited extent that I have seen how the relationship works in practice, I have never seen anything that has given me cause for concern, but I am not an expert in service policing.

That completes our questions. Thank you very much, Jonathan, for coming in to answer our questions and for contributing to our report.

If I have a think about something and I realise I can add more, can I give written evidence?

Yes, by all means, write to us. We have a few minutes of this session left if there is anything you want to impart now.

My senior civil servant will no doubt tell me where I have gone wrong. Examination of witness Witness: HHJ Alan Large.

Welcome. We will be using first names, if that is all right with you. Please introduce yourself and we will get on to the first question.

My name is Alan Large, and I am the Judge Advocate General.

Thank you for being here this afternoon, Alan. The Bill will give service courts new powers to address sexual harm and domestic abuse. In your view, are these powers appropriate to help tackle sexual harm and domestic abuse in the context of service life?

Yes, I think so. They bring the service system up to date with the civilian system, and slightly ahead of it in one area, I believe, but they have to be accompanied by education. You cannot just bring something in and say, “There we are. We’ve done it now.” You have to bring it in and tell everyone who needs to know about it. They need to know that there are service domestic abuse prevention orders and that there are service this and that. People need to know about them. Once they are educated at all levels, the system will work better than it does now.

How do you think we should go about that programme of education?

It has to take place at a variety of levels. The welfare authorities have to educate service personnel about the orders and notices that you can apply for if you are a victim of domestic abuse. The police need to know about it, what they can do and how to do it. The courts need to know about it. We need to know how to make the orders, how to pass the orders, and when not to pass an order. The Service Prosecuting Authority, my predecessor in a past life, and Mary Cowe, now in her new life, need to know. The prosecutors need to know how to deal with them as well. It is at all levels. It is not just the judiciary and service people. It is at all levels to make sure everyone understands it.

May I ask about the service courts getting new powers? Can you give us a feel for how that will change?

The first thing to say is that it will depend on the number of times there is an application for such a notice or order, if that is coming from the police. The court has the ability to impose an order as well. Let us look at that one, which is just the courts. If you have a case with a domestic violence context, you will be able to make an order that the defendant must not do x or y. That order is binding on the defendant for as long as you make the order, whether they are in the service or not in the service. The defendant is prohibited from going to such a place or speaking to such a person. That is another way of keeping domestic abuse to a minimum, by imposing a legal requirement to keep the defendant away from the victim.

And that would not have happened in the past.

It does not happen at the moment.

In your written evidence you quote statistics that the conviction rate in 2024 for rape-flagged offences in service courts was 29%, compared with 23.1% in civilian courts. That is quite interesting because it is a bit higher than in the civilian courts, but obviously still low.

It’s a case of here or there, isn’t it?

Can you talk us through why that is? We all know lots of reasons why, but why is the conviction rate so low for these offences, and why do you think there is a discrepancy between civilian and service courts?

We have to be really careful with discrepancies—we really do. We have 20 people, 20 cases, and we can have one or two go the other way. These are done on a 49% or 51% balance of probabilities—the SPA’s test. You can just tip over on to that. We prosecute the case and it goes to the court for prosecution and for a verdict. If it does not make it because it was very closely balanced, your statistics obviously drop. There is another statistic that you might have come across to do with rape flagging. When you add a rape flag to a case, that increases both sets to about 50% civilian and service. My take on it is that they are about the same, give or take a little bit here and a little bit there, so I cannot say why there is a problem. The point is they are about the same. That is my answer to your question.

Do you think there is anything in the Bill that will help with that low conviction rate?

Not that immediately comes to mind.

Do you think it is a low conviction rate?

That is a good question as well. I think 50% of cases is not bad, compared with 30% of cases—two out of three are not guilty, and one out of three are guilty. One would like it to be more than that perhaps, but it is the conviction rate. The conviction rate is the conviction rate, whichever rate you take. This Bill deals with things around the edge of the cases, not the central issues. There is another Bill being discussed in the House this afternoon that may have a different effect on the conviction rate, but I do not think that this is necessarily going to affect it.

Do you have any thoughts on the decision not to take forward the Lyons review recommendation to make serious offences fall solely under civilian jurisdiction?

I have a number of thoughts. The Lyons review reported in 2018, which is a number of years ago. The Government of the day did not follow the Lyons recommendations. What they did instead, and this Government are doing the same thing, is take big steps to modernise and improve the system. We now have a Defence Serious Crime Unit and a Victim Witness Care Unit. We also had another study by Sir Richard Henriques, a High Court judge. He did not want to do away with murder, manslaughter and rape, and his argument was quite well made, I thought. We have also introduced mixed board members. A lot of different things have happened to better support the journey of the victim through a case, such as extra special measures, which Jonathan Rees talked about. A lot has happened since 2018, so we are not in the same place, but we still have that jurisdiction. If you want me to talk about that jurisdiction and why I think we should retain it, I can do so, but I don’t think that was necessarily your question.

What is a mixed board member?

On a rape board, we now have six board members—two from the Navy, two from the Army and two from the Air Force. Six Army officers trying another Army officer for rape has gone. It is now mixed boards.

Are they gender-balanced?

There has to be one person of each gender on the board. Obviously, the gender mix is usually to make sure there is a female on the board. In fact, I went into a room to do a sentencing case not so long ago and there were three females ready to do the sentencing. I said to them that I was sorry, but we needed to get a male to do the sentencing. We had to get the waiting member to replace one of the females, because we had three females. It does work both ways.

You will have heard us talking to Jonathan Rees about jurisdiction. Clause 25 will require the Secretary of State to introduce guidance on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, as you are aware. In your personal view, what value would this guidance add, given that the protocols already exist between the service and civilian systems?

I heard Jonathan’s answers, and I could just say that I agree with him and leave it at that, but I will try to put a little more flesh on the bones.

He has left the room, so it’s fine.

I think it is going to be difficult for the Secretary of State to give too much information. He will be able to talk about the similarities and differences. We have six jurors, six board members, and you have 12. We have two from each service, and you have 12 from the jury—that sort of thing. The law is all the same in a rape case, whether it is tried in the court martial or the Crown court. It is exactly the same law, so that can be explained. When it comes to things like conviction rates or delays, the Secretary of State and his team will have to work out how to deal with those issues. It may be that it can be done by dividing a chunk of the country where the delay is a year, and that is explained, and another chunk where it is three years, and that is explained. I don’t know what they will do. It is useful to have, and it will be helpful, but it will need careful work.

Do you accept the argument that there have been some controversial cases over the past few years where it was deemed that the service system did not necessarily act in the best interests of the victim, and that it is therefore fair to give victims of serious offences the choice to take it outside of the service system?

I will answer the last half of the question and leave the first bit. It is certainly very important that we take the victim’s wishes into account when deciding on the appropriate venue for trials. If the victim very much wants it in the civilian jurisdiction, it will go there unless there is a really good reason for it not to go there, and if the victim very much wants it in the service system, it will go there unless there is a good reason for it not to go there. I think that probably answers your question.

It does, and I withdraw the first part of my question. I understand, and I apologise.

No problem.

That is actually different from what would happen in a civil court—we are debating those today in the main Chamber—in which a victim would not have any say at all over where or how the case was heard. But they would under this system. That is quite interesting.

They would, and they have that already. They are spoken to. Jonathan made the point, as I do, that the quality of the data is perhaps not as good as it might be, and they may be very upset at the time that they are asked the question. It would be helpful if that could be regulated a bit more to make sure that they understand, and that if they want to—sometimes they will be very clear on what they want to do—they can get information upon which they can base their decision.

And that is the difference.

Do you have any other views on the Bill’s provisions on service courts? Are there any areas that the Bill does not address?

I would point one out, which has been pointed out to the officials working on the Bill and is to do with people who have left the service by the time they are brought to trial. We can try people who are serving, and we can, and do, try people who are not serving and have left the service. At the moment, the drafting of the Bill does not allow service courts to impose the new orders—the service restraining orders, service domestic abuse prevention orders, and so on—on people who have left the service at the time of trial. It is a matter for policy, not for me, but as a lawyer dealing with the system, I would suggest that we need some new words in the Bill to bring them back into the fold. I did not spot this—Mary Cowe did and pointed it out to me, so I am flagging it now—but I would suggest that in the current drafting, there is a problem in dealing with the serviceperson who has left the services but is being tried by the services. If he has left the service but is on trial, we cannot impose those orders. We can enforce them if they are imposed when the person is in the service, but we cannot impose them once they have left. That needs tightening up.

Taking you back to conviction rates, there is a generally low conviction rate in the service justice system. Is there an issue that needs to be addressed there?

I think you asked me whether there is a low conviction rate compared with the civilian system. When you take off all the flags, tags and everything else, I do not know.

Should you?

Possibly, but I do not know whether the overall conviction rate is lower than in the civilian system. There will be statistics on different sides: some people say the conviction rate for rape is 70%, others say it is 29%. That is for the same offence. Where is the true statistic? It is very difficult to find that. Do I think there is anything that needs to be done to improve the conviction rate, whatever it is? I cannot think of anything, while speaking to you, that needs to be done. We have a system that reflects the civilian system, except for board members and things like that. The system seems to work.

We have flown through our questions for this session—your answers have been very concise. Would you like to add anything that we have not probed that you think we ought to be aware of?

I think you have covered all the ground I was expecting you to cover.

Okay. If anything springs to mind on conviction rates once you have gone away and looked at the figures, by all means write to us. Thank you, Alan, for your evidence and for helping us with our inquiry. Witnesses: Brigadier Kristian Rotchell and Nina Slocombe.

This is the afternoon’s third evidence panel to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. You are very welcome. We have been using first names, if that is okay. If you could introduce yourselves, we will get straight on to the questions.

I am Nina Slocombe, and I am the head of the Defence Victim Witness Care Unit, and we are responsible for providing victim support to victims and witnesses going through the service justice system.

I am Kris Rotchell, and I run the Defence Serious Crime Command within the Ministry of Defence.

Excellent. Mike will ask the first questions.

Thanks for coming. We will start with you guys marking your own homework. Since we established the Victim Witness Care Unit and the Defence Serious Crime Command, what progress has the service justice system made in the treatment of victims?

When we stood up and opened our doors in March ’23, with DSCC standing up in December ’22, we initially had a rush of ongoing investigations. Since then, we have looked at the narrative on hearing the victim’s voice, which absolutely has to be key in everything we do. We have to ensure that the victim’s voice is heard, recorded and escalated when things have gone wrong.

Was that not the case before?

I would like to think it was, as victim liaison officers were available before we stood up. Before we had a dedicated, professional victim liaison unit, the service police would provide that. There was also an independent victim advocacy service available. But with the Victim Witness Care Unit standing up, it is a central point for the service justice system, not just for victims and witnesses but for ensuring the flow of communication and the passage of information between the professional stakeholders.

From a policing perspective, there are a couple of key points to get across about those changes and advancements. First and foremost, structural independence is crucial. Prior to the formation of the Defence Serious Crime Command, the responsibility for serious criminal investigations within the service justice system sat inside each of the single services, and that has now changed. My command is completely independent of the three single services. We don’t report to them or answer to them, and therefore we investigate completely independently of them. The second thing I would highlight is the continued, demonstrable professionalisation of service policing within Defence. Our direction of travel is clear, in that we want to ensure that we abide by national UK best policing practice, both in terms of the way we investigate, operating inside College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance, and in the way we train, develop and accredit our people to professional standards. We use the College of Policing’s Professionalising Investigations programme as the benchmark for that, which is really important. We continue to work on getting the governance mechanisms right. It is absolutely right that we are held to account, and you have already heard from Jonathan Rees KC, the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. For me, as a provost marshal and as a chief officer within Defence, that is hugely welcome. Our people, our decisions, our processes and the way we interact with victims, suspects, witnesses and our community must have an avenue for us to be held accountable. External scrutiny is also really important. We are currently engaging and communicating with His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services about their first statutory inspection of us. I think that external scrutiny is vital for us to be able to demonstrate that we are independent, that we place victims at the heart of what we do, and that we work really hard—from both a victim and an investigative point of view—to secure the right outcomes for victims. That is our headline: securing the right outcomes for victims.

I am paraphrasing slightly, but I was quite struck that you said that your governance mechanisms are evolving. Where are they going from and to? What is the journey that you are on?

The journey really started with the creation of Defence Serious Crime Command. I say that we are evolving and on a journey because Defence is currently undertaking a governance review of all service policing—not just my organisation, but the other three service police forces—to ensure that the correct governance is placed above us.

I was also struck by your championing the independence of your organisation, which is great. Some would argue that Operation Northmoor, the investigation into the Afghan Special Forces allegations, was shut down prematurely. Would you say that could not happen now, with these new governance arrangements and the independence that you have?

I am aware of the Afghanistan inquiry, and for complete transparency, I have been an open witness to it and given a corporate view on that, in terms of what happened in the past. I am aware of what the position was then, and I have also listened to much of the open evidence and expert views in the inquiry. My view is that it absolutely could not happen now. I have a statutory duty, placed on me personally, under section 115A of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to ensure that any investigation undertaken by Defence Serious Crime Command is free from any form of improper interference. I take that duty extremely seriously. I consider “any improper interference” to include anybody, from the Secretary of State right down to any member of the forces. I am confident, because of that, that our investigators are able to pursue any line of inquiry that they feel they need to, and they should be trusted to, to get to the truth of a matter. Importantly, if I link that to the Armed Forces Bill, clause 12 strengthens it even more. At the minute, that duty is just on me. It is my duty, or our other provost marshals in Defence, to make sure that happens. Clause 12 places a duty on everybody to ensure that they do not do anything that would interfere with a police investigative process or an operational policing decision. I think the clause gives us real, clear equivalence to Home Office policing, and it mirrors some of the provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002. Ultimately, it sets out the governance best practice that the public and our community would expect, because nobody would want to think that any police force could come under any form of pressure, political or otherwise, to investigate something it shouldn’t, to cease an investigation or to take an investigation in a different direction.

That is very clear. Thank you. You have both given a good picture of the progress that has been made. Kristian has just mentioned something that he thinks will be improved by clause 12. Nina, will the Bill bring in anything else that improves the picture and drives further progress, either for victims or for the other side of the argument?

Absolutely. From a Victim Witness Care Unit perspective, there are several measures that we are highly pleased about, such as clause 5 on the sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. I cannot stress enough how that will provide our clients—we refer to victims and witnesses as clients—with enhanced safeguarding and mitigation of risk. As I think the JAG said earlier, that will allow placement of additional prohibitions and restrictions on those offenders. Conviction is not required for a sexual risk order, so it can be in place on an individual while an investigation or the judicial process is ongoing. That will provide enhanced safeguarding and fill a safeguarding gap for our clients. One of the strongest measures is clause 6, on protection from domestic abuse and stalking. Stalking is not to be underestimated as an offence type. It may have a lower percentage in our stats, but the harm is very much there and is real. We feel that clause 6 will address the most significant safeguarding issue for VAWG in Defence. It will mirror the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the Stalking Protection Act 2019. It will allow early intervention, reduce risk and improve victim safeguarding. Those are the three main provisions that we welcome, not just for safeguarding but because they may assist a client to continue to engage. We have spoken about victim attrition already; I like to think that those measures will go some way towards reducing victim attrition and keeping them engaged in the system.

I would highlight the importance of a lot of measures in the Bill. The Bill is a huge opportunity for the service justice system to close some gaps and make sure that we keep pace with the criminal justice system. From my perspective, that is about placing victims at the heart of what we do. Our primary role as a policing organisation is to protect people from harm. We need to close the gaps, ensure that we keep pace and ensure that we can deliver the right service to our community, particularly those individuals who are part of it. Two measures that I would highlight as really significant and necessary, from my perspective as Defence’s most senior police officer, are clause 17, with the expansion of the duty of a commanding officer, and clause 15, on pre-charge custody. On clause 15, all of us would probably agree that it is slightly unusual that an employer of an individual would have a say, in the middle of a police investigation, over whether someone should take the really serious and significant step of depriving someone of their liberty without knowing the full facts of an investigation, and without understanding the implications that doing so or not doing so could have for the investigation. The clause will rightly place that power with the police, where the police think it necessary. I think that it really reinforces the independence of investigations. Clause 17 will expand the statutory duty of a CO to ensure, from a policing perspective, that more allegations make their way to the police. That duty was a great step; I do not think that it exists anywhere else in the UK justice landscape, so it was always welcome, but it was perhaps too closely aligned to the specific chain of command that the commanding officer and the individual were in. As a commanding officer myself, I am very clear that the new duty places more focus on the need for police investigations where a serious crime may have happened. I expect that there are different views on whether the provision goes far enough or should be expanded further, but my view, from a policing perspective, is that it does. We have certainly considered, internally in the police and in line with our victim colleagues, whether it goes far enough. We are concerned that if it went further it could have a chilling effect on our service personnel, particularly on our victims, who may wish to speak to or communicate with someone as a friend about something that has happened to them. Criminalising that would have a real impact on the agency that victims have in their journey. I think the clause will ensure that those in the chain of command do the right thing. It places a statutory duty on them. I listened to the previous evidence about what happens if someone fails to do that. I do not wish to go into any specific cases, as that would be challenging for us, but I can say that there are a number of investigations and sub judice matters that relate directly to commanding officers failing to fulfil that duty. That shows, positively, that we do take action and hold people to account when and if the circumstances arise. It is about placing chains of command in a position to do the right thing, while retaining agency for victims.

Thank you for being with us today, Brigadier and Nina. A number of different mechanisms and structures are being brought into Defence; individually, many of them have merit, but to me, it is the problem between problems. How will the new structure around the Armed Forces Commissioner, and their new powers to go into bases if a crime has been reported and request information from COs and the military organisation, work in conjunction with your organisation? Will they have to seek a warrant from you, and will you have to go to the court? How will it work in practice?

I am not sure that I can fully answer that question. I am very clear on our ability to enter locations and to seek certain things under the statutory powers that we have. Perhaps Defence may be able to come back to you and answer that more broadly. The overlay between the powers of the Armed Forces Commissioner and service policing is not necessarily something that I have complete clarity on right here, right now, and I absolutely would not want to mislead the Committee.

Has that conversation been forecast for the coming months and years, as the Armed Forces Commissioner position is established?

It absolutely needs to be discussed, but from my perspective the statutory and operational independence of policing and our ability to conduct our investigations are set out in legislation and are absolutely paramount.

You mentioned earlier, Kris, that you offer the professional standards function for service police forces. Historically and in the past few years, unfortunately, there have been some controversial cases in all the services’ police investigations. Without going into any particular detail, can you confirm that you have undertaken significant investigations into those three individual forces under the professional standards umbrella? If you believe or understand that there has been a civilian professional standards decision or investigation against an individual officer, how is that dealt with? I am struggling with the terminology, as I know that they are not called “police officers” in the services; I apologise, but you understand where I am going with this. Have there been investigations and—for want of a better word—sanctions against those individuals?

I certainly would not go into any specific cases. To clarify, each of the four service police forces has its own professional standards department. Within the Defence Serious Crime Command, we have a professional standards department; we also have a remit to investigate schedule 2 offences under the Armed Forces Act. I will speak for the Defence Serious Crime Command. There are absolutely instances in which allegations have been made against service police officers, they have been investigated and sanctions have been applied. The role of the Service Police Complaints Commissioner is really important, because that sets out on a statutory basis the requirements for us to inform and report certain specified matters that could amount to misconduct or gross misconduct to, currently, Jonathan Rees’s team for them to independently investigate. Again, I am very happy to confirm that there have been a number of instances in which we have referred matters and referred ourselves to the Service Police Complaints Commissioner, much in the same way you would expect to see a Home Office police force referring itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Thank you for attending this afternoon, and thank you both for your service. You have already touched on clause 17 and the statutory duty. Kristian, do you think that duty is enough for commanding officers to take their responsibility seriously? What are the consequences if they choose to ignore it?

I do. As I hope I have explained, going further with clause 17 is right, but I am not sure that we would want to go further still, because of the chilling effect that it could have on victims. Sorry, but could you repeat the question about consequences?

I am really asking you what the consequences are if a commanding officer chooses to ignore their statutory duty to report things.

As a service police force, the Defence Serious Crime Command is responsible for those types of investigation, and we take them really seriously. Section 113 of the Armed Forces Act currently places that duty on a commanding officer, and the Bill will expand that duty. It is fundamental to operational effectiveness in Defence, because it is the glue that holds us all together. We need trust, and these cases are where we would be going near a breach of trust. The consequences can be severe. They can range from a criminal investigation for misconduct in public office, which as you know is a very serious criminal offence, right through to the service-specific offences that His Honour Judge Large or Jonathan Rees mentioned, such as failure to perform a duty, negligently performing a duty or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. There are a range of outcomes; there is also employment action that individual single services could take. I do not want to over-egg the reporting by commanding officers, because there are a number of methods and mechanisms for reporting serious criminal allegations in Defence. That can be directly to us or, sometimes, through the chain of command. Quite often, the chain of command can be a huge benefit to individuals, particularly where it is functioning very well and is trusted by those individuals. One of the most important things that we still have to do, and are doing right now, is bring in a clear, coherent mechanism for victims of crime in Defence to report directly, away from their chain of command. We are currently bringing in an IS programme called Single Online Home, which will allow anybody—anywhere in the world, at any time, as long as they have access to the internet—to report a crime online to us that will go nowhere near their chain of command, much as you would see if you went on any one of your constituent Home Office police force websites.

On that aspect, Nina, the service justice system is frequently criticised for its lack of independence from the chain of command. How often do you encounter cases in which a victim believes that the chain of command has reacted inappropriately?

From conducting risk assessments and initial narratives with the clients, and through the course of their journeys with us and through the SJS, it has sometimes been disclosed that they have reported stuff that was not promptly dealt with, although it was finally dealt with, or that they have just not felt supported in their day-to-day work. You have to look at the co-location, which is one of the biggest fears for people coming forward. When they are with us, they could be serving on the same warship, deployed in a small detached unit, or even living in the same single-living accommodation. That is very much a live fear. Going back to the chain of command, we ask our clients, “Do you want your chain of command informed of this?”—meaning the service that we are providing to them, and indeed the investigation. The majority are okay with their chain of command being informed, but there are definitely cases in which their choice is not to have their chain of command informed. We absolutely honour that: we will then not share or discuss any information with their chain of command. Because they are independent of chains of command in the single services, the victim liaison officers can be advocates for the clients, if required, and make sure that any grievances are escalated and dealt with swiftly.

Is it a common problem that victims or clients encounter cases in which chains of command have reacted inappropriately, or is that rare?

From a client viewpoint—from my side of the fence, if you will—it is more common that chains of command are being supportive in the workplace or when deployed. It is a smaller number that have not been.

From my perspective, in broad terms, I completely mirror what Nina says. I do not have, right here and now, the data on the number of investigations that we have undertaken since our inception, but we will be very happy to provide that to you, Chair, either tomorrow when you visit us or in writing.

If you have anything to add, yes, that would be helpful.

The new service policing protocol is supposed to ensure the independence of investigations and improve working relationships between the various service policing bodies. Can you give us some insight into the need for the protocol and the current state of the working relationships between the DSCU and other service police forces?

I may have covered some of this already, but it is really important to reiterate. The headline point for me is that it is about victim confidence, and victims having confidence in the independence—particularly the operational policing independence—of investigations. I think that this measure is pivotal to increasing victim confidence. That structural independence is really important; I will come back to that point in a moment, because it links to how we interact with the other service police forces. It is really adding to that duty placed on me, and on my colleagues in the Royal Military Police, the Royal Air Force Police and the Royal Navy Police, to ensure that everybody in Defence understands what their role is. That can only be a good thing. Certainly, if I look at the headline policing principles of effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy, this really chimes with legitimacy. As for how we operate alongside other service police forces, we all operate within the same service justice system, but there are clear delineations in terms of responsibility. The three single-service police forces have a responsibility that largely aligns with schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Act—the less serious offences—whereas our focus is on schedule 2. As an organisation, we are entirely dependent on resourcing from those three forces, with the exception of some civil servants and some external civil policing contractors who work within our organisation. Currently, we are also dependent on them for the provision of some aspects of first response policing, very much like how a neighbourhood policing team would operate in a Home Office force, and for the provision of many of our specialist capabilities—digital services, wet and dry forensics and some other aspects. We do not just operate with our service police colleagues, though. A question was asked earlier about Home Office police forces and how we interact. Would it be useful for me to expand on that point, Chair?

If you feel it is relevant, I am happy for you to go into it. We have time.

Thank you, Chair. I think it is relevant, because policing is an interagency business. Police reform will look at many of those aspects. Defence is also going through its own version of police reform, with both governance and structures. How we work with the Home Office, police and other national policing agency counterparts is really important. We work collaboratively with all police forces, where our paths cross or where our requirements cross, whether they are inside or outside Defence. Ultimately, we are working to the same professional standards in our policy, our doctrine and our professional accreditation. As of this week, we have one of our investigators embedded in another police force’s investigation into the recent sad death of a serviceperson, to support them and to give service knowledge where it is required, but also to ensure that we are working together. We sometimes use their custody facilities, for instance where that is the best thing for safeguarding the individual we are dealing with. We also rely heavily on one another for external reviews at times. For certain cases or certain decisions, it is sometimes very sensible to have a peer review; it is even more sensible to go outside your organisation to do that. We work as collaboratively as we can.

Nina, I want to go back to the victims—something we all care passionately about. We started discussing your views on the new powers to use restrictive orders to protect victims of sexual harm and domestic abuse, for example. You mentioned stalking as well. Do you have any concerns about them? Do they go far enough?

I would say that the proposed measures will go far enough. My concern will be how they are implemented. It needs to be timely. It needs to be robust. There needs to be adequate training for the individuals undertaking this—and that will be all professional stakeholders who will have interaction with these orders. Like everywhere, it will need the requisite workforce. This is not something you can pay lip service to. It will need investment. My concern is how that is going to move forward.

You mentioned stalking before, as an example. It is clear that all three services have to now start doing things differently. If these orders are in place, these people need to be separated. They need different accommodation if they are married, for example, and where there are children involved. There is quite a lot of work to do here. Would you agree?

There is, but there are already mechanisms in place in each of the three single services. They just differ slightly—because why do it all the same? When you need to mark somebody’s employment card, if you will, in layman’s speak, to make sure person A cannot serve or live with serviceperson B, each of the three single services do that slightly differently because of different systems, but it is being done. What these measures will do is make that legally enforceable, with consequences if they are not adhered to. My concern, or my question, is how quickly they are going to be implemented across the service police as a whole, because I think I am right in saying that it will affect all three single services, and probably the first responders, which would not ordinarily be DSCC. Everybody will have a responsibility.

On the military side, there is clearly an impact here. As a veteran, I am struggling to understand this. When we had the Queen’s regulations, there were high standards expected of you. If you have an individual who is suddenly subject to a stalking or domestic abuse warrant against them, has it been considered how that will affect operational effectiveness? Is that individual then going to be extracted, and not just from that element, if there is clear evidence? I know that nobody is guilty until they are found guilty. However, I wonder if the military has considered the impact that these orders are going to have on the operational effectiveness of the service?

As a veteran, you will know that the Defence context is in many ways unique. That is quite rightly so because of what we ask our service personnel to do and where we ask them to do it. However, where it cannot be different is where we are talking about the basic standards of protection for victims. Our experience is clear and probably chimes with that: victims in service do not necessarily want to—nor should they have to—face someone who has harmed them on a daily basis. In my experience, our service personnel all want to come to work and be able to do the job that they are proud to do without fear of any repercussions or harm. They do an amazing job. As you have said, we are likely to see conditions focused on geography and contact for victims, potentially witnesses in some cases, and suspects. We want to prevent further harm to them and prevent further offending. Training and education will be absolutely crucial to this in terms of its application across Defence. It will require various chains of command to make really clear and bold employment decisions to uphold these orders. I say orders, because that is really important: these are going to be judicial orders, and the chain of command will have to abide by them. That is why it is a significant step change. From our internal perspective as a policing organisation, we have to make sure that our training and education are right so that we can be part of that journey. We have to get our resourcing right in terms of how we apply these measures, in conjunction with our excellent victim specialists and colleagues in the prosecuting authority and judiciary, because we should not be asking Parliament for legislation that we cannot practically bring in. Getting our resourcing, skills and experience right in those areas from a policing perspective, alongside the chain of command being clear on what their roles and responsibilities are, is crucial to the success of this.

Given the unique and global nature of what the forces undertake, would you agree that the chain of command must understand that these orders must never be to the detriment of the victim?

I absolutely agree.

That is a challenge that we have. Finally, are these military orders—if they are dealt with through the service system—shared with the civilian police agencies?

Certain aspects are. Judge Alan highlighted an area where there might be some further work required to make sure that the best possible protection is provided by ensuring they apply equally whether someone is serving or not. What I would not want to do is to mislead you in terms of what those specifics are, because they are quite detailed legislative points.

Nina, do you have any views on the extension of the multi-agency public protection arrangements under clause 9?

Again, this is a welcome clause for us, particularly when it comes to offenders leaving the service—whether they leave of their own volition or are dismissed. As it stands, if they are sentenced to an HMP as opposed to MCTC, the Military Corrective Training Centre, that is an automatic dismissal from the armed forces. My department will then offer the victim contact scheme, and they can opt into that if they wish. We will link them up with the relevant probation service to ensure they are kept informed and given the option to provide a victim personal statement if a parole board comes up, or if there is a discussion around early release, and they will be given updates on the offender. The same happens if they go to the Military Corrective Training Centre. The MAPPA process will enhance that safeguarding and provide—I hope—extra confidence and safety for the clients, whether the individual is still serving and that risk is managed, or they are out on civilian streets. The MAPPA clause is multi-agency; it is what it says on the tin. It involves the police service, the probation service, social workers, and possibly us adopting that multi-agency approach in reducing risk—so yes, we welcome the MAPPA in clause 9.

Have you anything to add, Kristian?

From a policing perspective, we welcome anything that safeguards people. Clause 9 is really important for the small number of people who may meet the MAPPA criteria and, for whatever reason, continue to serve in Defence, particularly where they are required to go overseas or to step outside of the UK jurisdiction. It ensures that public protection is applied not just in our community or in the UK as a whole, but internationally, which I think is really important.

Nina, the Bill will introduce a new victims code of practice. Can you tell us more about what you think the code will achieve?

As someone has already alluded to today, the victims code of practice is written in policy within Joint Service Publication 839, so to see this legislated for is absolutely welcome. I feel it will cement the 12 rights that every victim and witness is entitled to, and which should be offered and delivered regardless of which justice system they follow. To have that enshrined in legislation is absolutely key. It is also about those individuals who have a responsibility to victims of crime, because this is much wider than just the service justice system. As we have already spoken about today, this is about the commanding officers, the second-in-command, the sergeant, or the leading hand in charge of a mess. Everybody has a responsibility. If that responsibility is not followed up on or executed correctly—that is quite a technical phrase, I apologise—we have something to hold them to account on. No victim should be denied their victims’ rights or support within the armed forces, so we welcome the code’s being cemented.

Kristian, have you anything to add?

Victims have to be at the heart of what we do, and that is crucial.

How would introducing new guidance on criminal jurisdiction, under clause 25 of the Bill, improve victims’ experiences of the service justice system?

Ultimately, this is about giving victims more of a voice. I agree with the comments of previous witnesses. From my perspective, highlighting the differences and similarities, and really allowing victims to give an informed preference, can only be a good thing.

Already, if our victim liaison officers are contacted before an individual has made a formal police report of a serious offence, they will ask on occasion, “What are my options?” The victim liaison officers will lay those out in a way that is balanced. It will not be about highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each justice system, but they will lay out the facts of the criminal justice system and its pathway, and the facts of the service justice system and the victim pathway, to help that individual make an informed choice moving forward. It is key that they are informed of each.

So when they make their preference, is that respected? Are they encouraged to make a preference? Do you think it is taken into consideration enough?

Absolutely. As has already been said this afternoon, that preference is taken into account. Based on what I have seen and read, from the Victim Witness Care Unit perspective, more often than not they are content with the service justice system that they are going through, even if maybe they were not to begin with, because they have started to understand that it is actually a benefit for them to go through this. We have had victims who are service personnel go through the civilian justice system, and they have repeatedly had to explain what their role is, what a deployment is and all the technicalities that come with the complexities of service life, whereas all the professionals within the service justice system understand service life and its complexities.

Just so I am clear, when victims express a preference, that preference is respected and people take it into consideration?

Yes.

Okay. Questions were asked earlier about conviction rates. Kristian, do you think that conviction rates in the service justice system are high enough, or are they about right? Or is it hard to say?

It is hard to say, as there are so many different metrics that can be used. As Judge Alan highlighted, in comparison with the more than 60,000 cases reported in the criminal justice system annually, the number of the most serious sexual offences is significantly lower, so there can be anomalies. From a policing perspective, I want to see high-quality, timely investigations that are associated with outstanding victim support, so that they give the best prospect of a victim securing justice. As a policing professional, I would be very wary of talking about wanting to see conviction rates, because my part in that journey is about high-quality evidence that allows prosecutors and courts to make decisions. What I would say is that we always want to see the right outcomes for victims, and we have to work holistically to make sure that every piece of that justice chain delivers the right outcome. I have perhaps not answered your question, Chair, but from a policing perspective, it is hard for me to gauge whether judicial outcomes are correct.

Nina, what do your victims say to you about the conviction rates?

When our clients have gone through trial and a sentence has been passed—or not, with an acquittal or not guilty verdict—they are of course going to be upset and distraught. But we have also had clients who have not had a positive outcome at court, by which I mean there was a finding of not guilty, but they have said, “I felt supported all the way through, and I have understood and had the support I needed to get through the trial.” As in any justice system, if you do not get the process and support right when you are going through investigative prosecution and trial, it can be classed as a second trauma to the client. In some cases, it can actually be more traumatic than the initial incident that they reported. I cannot sit here and say that those clients who have not got a positive outcome were happy about that—of course, they were not—but what we need to do is ensure that these measures are implemented in a timely and correct manner, while still providing the victim support all the way throughout to help them to remain engaged in the process, and to feel empowered so that they can give the best evidence they possibly can at a trial and hopefully secure a conviction.

Lastly, do you feel that the cultural change in the defence judicial system has gone far enough to improve the experience of victims?

In the last three years, I would say that it has improved significantly, yes. Having joined the armed forces myself in the ’90s, I served for 26 years, and I only left just under four years ago. I have seen a significant change from the ’90s—thank goodness—through to when I left. I have been in Defence for nearly 30 years; there has been significant change in the cultures and behaviours, but there is still much to do, and I cannot sit here and say otherwise. However, the service justice system is not 100% of the picture—there are some great VAWG initiatives going on in Defence, including on education and raising awareness, and I think the two need to combine to really cement that improvement.

Upon a conviction, Kris, are the two processes of appeal the same in the civilian and military legal systems?

I would not want to mislead you on that. Can I give you a clear answer on that tomorrow, when you come and visit? There will be colleagues from other parts of the service justice system there, who can answer that far more articulately than I can.

I think Alan Large has just indicated that he might write to us with an answer to that question. That concludes our questions this afternoon. Thank you very much for your answers, and for coming along and helping us with our inquiry—we are very grateful.