ARMY BRIEFING NOTE
ARMY BRIEFING NOTES CONTAIN INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT
TO ALL PERSONNEL, BOTH SERVICE AND CIVILIAN. THEY SHOULD BE.
DISSEMINATED AS WIDELY AND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
Serial No: BO9/06 Source: DPS(A)
Date: 27 Apr 06 Released by: Def PR(A)
OUTCOME OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE
CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE CONSIDERATION OF THE DEATH OF SGT
ROBERTS RTR AND MR ZAHER DURING OP TELIC
ISSUE
The Announcement by the Attorney General to the House of Lords on Thursday 27" April
2006 following the consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of the
circumstances surrounding the death of Sgt Steven Roberts RTR and Mr Zaher Zabti
Zaher on 24 March 2003, in the first phase of the war fighting phase of Op TELIC,
In his statement the Attorney General said:
‘There is insufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings in this case.
“There is insufficient evidence to charge any of the Servicemen with military
offences.’
‘lam wholly satisfied that the decision to transfer this exceptional case to the civilian
system was the right action to take in the particular circumstances of the case.’
‘However, I wish to make it abundantly clear that there is no suggestion that the
chain of command acted unlawiully.”
‘Some 100,000 servicemen and women have served on Op TELIC. Only a very
small number have been accused of incidents involving the alleged ill-treatment of
'ragi civilians. Where there is an allegation and supporting evidence following
investigation, charges will be brought.”KEY POINTS
+ _We welcome the conclusion of this investigation and the decision that there will be no
prosecutions of anyone involved in the fatal shootings.
* Our sympathy remains with the families of both Sgt Roberts and Mr Zaher Zabti Zaher.
+ The Army will consider closely the comments by the Attorney General, many of which
have already been addressed and revised procedures are in place or being implemented.
* The Chain of Command acted lawfully.
+ The RMP (SIB) Investigations were conducted in a demanding and hostile war-fighting
environment and were inevitably constrained by the operational situation that prevailed at
the time. On transfer of this case to the civil authorities the RMP (SIB) remained in close
Support of the Metropolitan Police throughout.
* There is now a close working relationship between RMP investigators and the APA.
Work continues to implement the findings of two major studies commissioned by VCDS,
the issues highlighted by the JAG at the 3 PARA trial and there is a review of RMP
resources to meet operational demands.
* ABoard of Inquiry (BO!) will now be convened.
* The Oxford Coroner will conduct an inquest into the death of Sgt Roberts. .
* Throughout this long process the welfare and wellbeing of the soldiers involved has
been of primary importance. They have been afforded direct access to pastoral, medical
and welfare staff, and their legal bills are being met by the MOD. This level of support will
Continue. Mrs Samantha Roberts, the widow of Sgt Roberts, has been kept closely
informed of progress and will be kept informed of future developments.
BACKGROUND
Sgt Roberts was killed in the early hours of Monday 24 March 2008 during Op TELIC,
when he was caught in the line of fire from the coaxial machine gun of a UK armoured
fighting vehicle. He was deployed as a member of 8 Troop, Cyclops Squadron, 2 ATR. At
the time of the incident the Troop was operating a vehicle checkpoint and Sgt Roberts was
dismounted, stopping and searching vehicles for weapons. Mr Zaher, an Iraqi civilian, was
killed in the same incident.
SIB investigations were conducted, and the appointed CO, having sought legal advice,
referred the charges to Higher Authority who then passed the case to the Army
Prosecuting Authority (APA). Given the concurrent jurisdiction between the Attorney
General and the APA in such cases, the APA referred the case to the Attorney General in
September 2004, who in turn referred it to the CPS and the Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS). The Attorney General said in his statement ‘I was concemed that the intervention
by the chain of command, and the delays in the case, could have led to the defence
lawyers raising abuse of process arguments had the soldiers been charged with criminal
offences. An acquittal by a military court, following a successful abuse of process
argument by the defence, might have been perceived by some as a final act of the military
to cover up any possible wrongdoing by the British soldiers involved in the incident. Such
2Perceptions would not have been in the interest of the soldiers and may have damaged the
reputation of the military justice system’.