Report comment

How disappointing to see the ‘what’s worse’ argument being, unnecessarily, deployed by the much admired Clive Clifford Smith, in support of the sound observations he makes about immunity for armed forces which are compelling enough on their own.

As soon as you apply that measure to conduct of professionals - whether lawyers or soldiers - you compromise professional ethics, one purpose of which is to provide the tools with which to resist the appeal of such arguments.

As much as the lawyer might say his misconduct is something less than the soldiers’ alleged misconduct, the soldier will point to behaviour of others, higher up the ‘what’s worse’ scale by way of excusing his conduct. At whatever point in the scale the mitigation is being deployed it is of dubious value.

The mischief Clifford Smith might have pointed to is the evident closing of ranks within the armed forces at all levels which potentially compromised scrutiny of the allegations made against its members, in very pointed contrast to the readiness and effectiveness of the Solicitors profession in holding its own to account.