The UK Court Martial Appeal Court has held in R v Michael Peter Lyons that the applicant was not entitled to rely on the ground of conscientious objection to disobey a lawful command.
The applicant was in the Royal Navy and was posted to submarines as Leading Medical Assistant. Five years later, he was notified that he would be deployed to Afghanistan and applied for a discharge on the grounds that he objected to the UK's role in Afghanistan. Before this application was rejected, he was required to partake in a pre-deployment weapons training course. He refused to participate and was convicted of insubordination.
He put forward the argument that Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights protected him from active service and claimed that he had protected status under the Geneva Convention 1949. Although Article 9 could be relied upon, the fact that the appellant had volunteered for military service was taken into consideration when assessing the interests of public safety, the protection of public order and the protection of the rights of others.
The court held that unless a claim to a conscientious objection had been established, the applicant remains "subject to the requirements of military service and military discipline, otherwise he could immediately escape from the responsibilities which he had voluntarily accepted, regardless of the consequent risk to others and regardless of whether of whether or not his claim was well founded."
Click here to see a piece by the Guardian on the case.
Click here to see a post by the Human Rights Blog.