Policy background
Since the 1950s, an Armed Forces Act has been required every five years to continue in force the legislation enabling the armed forces to be recruited and maintained as disciplined bodies. Since 2009 the relevant legislation has been the AFA 2006, most of which came into force in 2009: this has been kept in force by further Armed Forces Acts in 2011 and 2016.
	The AFA 2006 replaced separate disciplinary regimes for, respectively, the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force. In so doing it introduced a single system of service law that provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system for the armed forces of command, discipline and justice. It also provides a more limited system for dealing with offences committed by certain civilians in circumstances closely connected with the armed forces. The AFA 2006 covers matters such as offences, the powers of the service police, and the jurisdiction and powers of commanding officers and of the service courts, in particular the Court Martial. Further, it contains a substantial number of other important provisions for the armed forces, such as provision for enlistment, pay and service complaints.
	In 2017, in preparation for this Act, the Ministry of Defence commissioned an independent review of the service justice system with the aim of ensuring its effectiveness. The review was carried out by HH Shaun Lyons, a retired senior Crown Court judge. Shaun Lyons was supported by Sir Jon Murphy, a former Chief Constable for Merseyside. The Review, which was published in February 2020, made 79 recommendations 1. The Government response to the Review is outlined in two written ministerial statements: dated 27 February 2020 2 and 12 November 2020 3.
	Most of the recommendations of the Service Justice System Review do not require primary legislation in order to implement them. This Act contains provisions relating to those recommendations of the Service Justice System Review which do. Those recommendations concern: the handling of cases committed in the United Kingdom which could be tried in either the service justice system or the civilian criminal justice system (particularly murder, manslaughter and rape) (recommendations 1 to 3 of Part 1; recommendation 23 of Part 2); the constitution of the Court Martial (recommendation 4 of Part 1; recommendations 24 to 26 of Part 2); Circuit judges sitting in the Court Martial (recommendation 7 of Part 1); provision to permit the correction of mistakes in sentencing at summary hearing (recommendation 43 of Part 2) and independent oversight of the service police (recommendation 44 of Part 2).
	Also relevant is the Report of the Henriques Review 4 into the Framework, Processes and Skills that the Service Justice System Requires for Overseas Operations. The review was carried out by Sir Richard Henriques, a retired High Court judge. The review was published on 21 October 2021. It made 64 recommendations. The Government response to this review was contained in a written ministerial statement 5 on the same date. In particular, the review contained recommendations about the establishment of a new service policing unit, to be known as the Defence Serious Crime Unit.
	In common with other five-yearly Armed Forces Acts, this Act contains measures which fall outside the ambit of the service justice system. Notably, the Act makes provision for the Armed Forces Covenant in fulfilment of the Government manifesto commitment at the general election in December 2019 that the Government would "further incorporate the Armed Forces Covenant into law". The new provision is part of the Government’s programme to ensure that members of the armed forces, veterans and their families are treated fairly. The Act also makes changes to the basis on which reservists can enter voluntary commitments to serve with the armed forces. It also makes provision about service complaints, the statutory complaints system by which service personnel can complain where they think themselves wronged in any matter relating to their service in the armed forces.