R v Lyons
[2011] EWCA Crim 2808
Independent editorial summary โ not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A member of the armed forces who claims conscientious objection remains subject to military discipline until the claim is finally determined: the services' procedure for deciding such claims satisfies Article 9(2) ECHR as prescribed by law and necessary in the interests of public safety and the rights of others, so an order to undergo weapons training given while an appeal is pending is lawful. An honest belief that an order is unlawful is no defence to disobeying a lawful command under s.12(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
Facts
A Royal Navy Leading Medical Assistant who had volunteered in 2005 was told in 2010 that he would be deployed to Afghanistan and, having concluded that the UK's involvement there was wrong, applied for discharge as a conscientious objector. His application was refused and, five days after lodging an appeal to the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors, he refused an order to accompany a warrant officer to the armoury, draw a weapon and begin weapon training. He was convicted at court martial of intentionally disobeying a lawful command and sentenced to seven months' military detention, reduction in rank and dismissal from the service.
Judgment Summary
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment given by Toulson LJ, dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence. The procedure for determining conscientious objection claims struck a lawful balance under Article 9, and lodging an appeal did not entitle the appellant to refuse orders in the meantime โ that would make the order optional at his choice. His protected status as a medical assistant under the Geneva Conventions did not make an order to train with weapons unlawful, and there is no requirement that a defendant knew or believed the command to be lawful. Although the sentence exceeded the guidance entry point, the Board was entitled to find the guidance inadequate for a deliberate refusal that engineered the appellant's removal from deployment.
Key Quotes
"If he seeks to be discharged from further service on the ground of conscientious objection, it is right that there should be a proper process for deciding whether his claim is well-founded. Until that has been established it is necessary and just that he should continue to be subject to the requirements of military service and military discipline."
โ Toulson LJ at [31](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"The operation of the armed services depends on service personnel obeying lawful orders."
โ Toulson LJ at [36](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Authority that a serviceman claiming conscientious objection remains bound by lawful commands until the claim is determined.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help