Judge warning MoD over equipment

[BEagle]

Sending British soldiers on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could breach their human rights, a High Court judge has ruled.

Mr Justice Collins said human rights legislation could apply to military personnel on active service.

See Breaking News at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7342324.stm

The High Court has also defeated Dismal Des Brownie's attempts to censor coroners verdicts:

An attempt by the government at the same hearing to restrict critical language used by coroners at such inquests was rejected by the court.

A good day for justice - and a poke in the eye for this Stalinist NuLabor regime....:ok:

[I've_got a traveller]

Indeed it is a great day for justice and demonstration of the democratic society we are supposed to be fighting for.

I still can't believe Des Brown tried to stop Coroner's verdicts being released.

Do aircraft with known faults and not designed for the roles that they currently being tasked with come under this breach of human rights act. If so I think this pitiful excuse of a government could be in for a shock.:eek:

[skua]

But as we can see from the BAe/Saudi case, this Government is prepared to give Parliament extraodinary powers to overrule the judiciary - in the "national interest" of course......

Skua

[BEagle]

More from the BBC:

The MoD confirmed it would be appealing against the ruling that sending British soldiers into battle with defective equipment could breach human rights.

On the judge's rejection of the government bid to stop coroners using critical language, such as "serious failure", the MoD said it had "at no point" attempted to prevent coroners from "undertaking independent investigations and making their findings public".

This simply beggars belief! Or would do, if we weren't all too familiar with the ways of NuLabor....:ugh:

[spheroid]

One of the fundamentals of the HRA is the right to life. Soldiers on a battleground have a right to life and if their life's are taken away from them then their families can take the government to court for failing under the HRA.

[Roland Pulfrew]

One of the fundamentals of the HRA is the right to life

That's going to make our profession untenable, surely! :confused:

then their families can take the government to court for failing under the HRA.

If they die as a result of enemy action then shouldn't the family take the enemy government to court? Assuming they have signed up to the farce that is the EUHRA!!

[Tappers Dad]

Solicitor Jocelyn Cockburn, of London-based firm Hodge, Jones and Allen,
welcomed the court's decision and said it would be of great significance to
military families.
Ms Cockburn said: "The judgment means British soldiers sent abroad have the
same human rights as any other British citizens and must be properly equipped
when sent into battle.
"This is not a threat to national security. The result should be improved
military procedures - and a better war-fighting force."
Ms Cockburn added the judgment also had great significance for the conduct of
future inquests into deaths on active service.
She said: "The parameters have now been set out for coroners by the judge.
"They must give families more disclosure of military documents, and the practice of deleting names from them has been called into question.
"There can no longer be full-scale redaction of names."
She said the judge had also ruled that families in Article 2 cases must be
given legal aid, if they were financially eligible."

:D:D:D:D:D:D

[SilsoeSid]

Sending British soldiers on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could breach their human rights, a High Court judge has ruled.

Does that mean they can now stay in this country or do they have to be deported?

[spheroid]

Solicitor Jocelyn Cockburn, of London-based firm Hodge, Jones and Allen,
welcomed the court's decision and said it would be of great significance to
military families..... but what about the servicemen ? Its ok for the families but what about the servicemen?


The judgment means British soldiers sent abroad have the
same human rights as any other British citizens and must be properly equipped
when sent into battle.
what does properly equipped mean ? Properly equipped for what ? If, as is the right under the EUHRA we must go into battle being properly equipped to have the right to retain our lives then we won't be able to go into battle.

The MOD must fight this barking mad judgement.

[Bunker Mentality]

More jobs for the lawyers, hoorah!

General Consternation, you sent your men into battle armed with SA80s when you knew there were better rifles available, thereby endangering their Right to Life. Go to Jail and do not pick up your pension!

There is clearly a lot more to be worked out here - like where does the Treasury stand?

SofS for Defence: ''Chancellor, in order to prepare our forces for future eventualities, we need £30 Bn.''

Chancellor: ''F**k off. Here's £19 Bn - and I grudge you every penny.''

SofS for Defence: ''But Chancellor, that will expose our men to avoidable risks, thereby potentially endangering their Right to Life.''

Chancellor: ''Don't worry, the MOD will get the blame, and you'll be long retired by the time the lawyers have stopped squabbling over the bones''.

[tucumseh]

It's highly unlikely Mr Justice Collins would confuse his legal terminology. He will know the difference between "defective" and "faulty".

That being so, MoD merely has to ensure it deals with defects in accordance with mandated policy.

In the case of aircraft, this is mandated airworthiness regulations and underpinning processes and procedures. As MoD has already been trashed by ACM Sir Clive Loader (see Nimrod) for ignoring precisely the same regs, and Des Browne has accepted liability, one assumes some form of amelioration is already in hand. So why should MoD complain about this judgement?

The issue is, how much grace MoD will be given, given it was a deliberate decision in the first place NOT to implement the regs properly. And given so many of the senior staffs disagree with these regs, and actively prevent their implementation, can we hope to see some vacancies arise?

Oh, and it would help if faults were addressed at the same time.

[Mick Smith]

It palpably does not mean that if you sent someone up in a Tornado rather than a Typhoon you could get done if they were shot down. What it refers to is defective equipment so if you sent them up in an aircraft that had a known fault which you didnt fix because you didnt want to spend the money you are breaching article 2 in regard to the crew. It isnt rocket science frankly, it's the law of the land.

The outrage here can be one of two things depending on your standpoint, that New Labour absorbed EHR legislation into UK law or that the MoD is preparing to waste a whole load more cash fighting the case.

[buoy15]

Arrogance explores boundary's
Breathtaking arrogance is routinely employed by this government's Ministers to eliminate those boundary's - they personally should be held to account for failings and foot the bill - that would focus their minds on their brief - they should not be allowed to appeal at taxpayers expense which lines the pockets of their mates down at the Lincoln Inn sewers

[Beatriz Fontana]

A legal pal of mine read this and said it was one of the wooliest decisions they'd seen in ages. It's open to so many interpretations (they reckon) it's either unworkable or applicable to almost everything. Probably why they're not a High Court judge!!

[Truckkie]

What a load of s:mad:

[JessTheDog]

Mr Justice Collins is simply upholding the Military Covenant.

If you send troops into war but refuse to order enhanced combat body armour then that is a breach. We all know someone who took that decision, don't we? Likewise for ESF and the many Nimrod safety issues.....

[richatom]

Well maybe this judgement will be the end of HMG sending troops into totally worthless and pointless wars, against the will of the general population, which was the case in the Iraq war.

Blair was only able to send troops into Iraq because of imperfections in the current UK system of "democracy". One of those imperfections is that HMG is not ultimately held to account if it makes the wrong decision.

If you look at country's with more evolved and accountable systems of democracy than the UK - eg Switzerland - they don't get caught up in pointless wars.

[WPH]

It is a good day for justice because I believe that a balance has to be struck which hasn't necessarily been correctly done in the past.
However, considering airworthiness as an example, having recently worked on an aircraft engineering authority I know that the engineers work hard to ensure that all known risks are documented and prioritised accordingly. But ultimately, the airworthiness risk alone is not the deciding factor, the cost of implementing the corrective action, coupled with the risk, is what is used to make the decision. As much as we would like to have the best available equipment, all aircraft risks mitigated etc, it can never happen without a bottomless pit of money. How many RAF aircraft fly with no Acceptable Deffered Faults or Limitations?

Am I condoning the behaviour of our government/ military bosses over every issue affecting defence? Of course not, but a balance of risk/ cost will always drive the decisions made.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

If I am reading these responses correctly, many of you chaps actually believe that this will put the a**es of the Government and the MoD in the kicking line? Well think it through. The argument will go on the lines that the kit was provisioned, irrespective of its serviceability state after issue and the adequacy of quantity. So who’s fault is it then? The IPT Inventory Manager for not issuing it to every Unit that demanded it and part quantities for the ones that did? The Unit stacker/dusty for not making it available or not in an adequate material state to the "end user"? Or the commander in Theatre for tasking an operation, whatever the consequences of failing to do so, without the correct and serviceable kit?

I had experience of this, many years ago, with Navy sea survival equipment. The SSE commodity manager (yes, unashamed fishspeak) was unable to provide in sufficient quantities some particular stores in the time available. It was physically impossible to service sufficient repairable stock through the Base maintenance centre nor use qualified Contractors to meet the demanded required delivery date. The Unit made the very valid point that this was a safety of life matter and any injury or loss of life would be the CM's responsibility. The CM’s head of section made the counter point that it would be the Unit’s responsibility if the task was conducted without adequate SSE. The Unit correctly lodged an Operational Deficiency; and, by whatever means, completed the task anyway without incident.

I’ve moved around a bit since then but appearing in Court for Human Rights violation doesn’t exactly appeal to me. The authors and supporters of reducing the SSE maintenance facilities as a savings measure would, no doubt, read about it in the papers. Maybe I should have taken up law as I would now have the opportunity to become very rich.

[general all rounder]

Perfect kit all the time for all 3 Services? Why have only 80 aircraft on a carrier? Surely 80 000 000 would be much safer. Infantry should have electro-magnetic force fields issued immediately, never mind that the cost would be a trillion trillion pounds!

I am sure we could spend the entire GDP on getting effective equipment and still be found wanting. This case has been brought by pressure groups who wish to make it impossible for the UK to wage war for any reason. With this judgement thay have secured victory; it marks the proximate end of European civilisation.

[EdSet100]

Most of us have seen footage of our troops in contact. I took note of the kit they were wearing. Without exception they were all properly dressed for the occasion. The troop commanders do not need a judge to tell them what will happen if any of their lads are without essential kit when they deploy onto the battle field. I would be very surprised if there was not a detailed list of kit (and condition thereof) published in Company Orders.

This judgement was aimed squarely at the staff officers in MOD, who issue troop movement orders without any thought given to ensuring that 500 soldiers require 500 times the essential indvidual kit, in good working order, before they leave the UK. I'm sure that every effort is made by the CO's before deploying to ensure that everyone is kitted out. After all, they do not wish to stand in front of a Coroner.

This is no more than a gypsies warning aimed at the old buffers (if there any left) who value their horse more than their batman.

[Chugalug2]

GAR:This case has been brought by pressure groups who wish to make it impossible for the UK to wage war for any reason.

The people who are hell bent on making it impossible for this country to successfully wage war are to be found in this government aided and abetted by their vassals in the MOD. The spotlight is now being shone on their dark deeds and with luck they will be brought to account soon.

Richatom: If you look at country's with more evolved and accountable systems of democracy than the UK - eg Switzerland - they don't get caught up in pointless wars.
Well they certainly didn't get caught up in WW2, did they? That 'pointless war' netted them massive inflows of Gold Bullion plundered by Germany from the central banks of the enslaved nations of Europe and even from the very mouths of the victims of the Holocaust . Nice people to do business with indeed!

[DouglasDigby]

Perfect kit all the time for all 3 Services?
Different bl~~dy argument, & you know it! Completely different from "acceptable risk" too.

How about enough enough functional kit (body armour, NVG, weapons, etc) to do the task? How about Nimrod fuel leaks or ESF for Hercs, acceptable armoured personnel carriers........????

Huge deficiencies & procedural problems. About time those REMFs in high-up offices get their backsides kicked from here to kingdom come.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Do you really believe that it will be "REMFs in high-up offices get their backsides kicked from here to kingdom come"? It will be the low level REMFs and commanders in the Field.

We are cheering for a home goal.

[Kitbag]

Do you really believe that it will be "REMFs in high-up offices get their backsides kicked from here to kingdom come"? It will be the low level REMFs and commanders in the Field.



Not if they document their requirements properly, the buck will stop with the person who denies the funding for the capability i.e. the 'Gate' decision makers.

[45 before POL]

The legalities of this case must have been looked into before the final decision. however it is a common theme of the government (and that is all departments...mod as well) to object to the decision. they will continuously do this to drag out any form of compensation(gulf war syndrome is a classic example) The problem they have with this decision is they are right in the dwang......... if they fail to overturn it they will find it to be the biggest compensation claim this country has ever seen............that aside, my opinion is as i believe most people believe is...give the troops the kit they deserve...and need!!!!!

[OilCan]

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
I agree with you - complete legaleeze twoddle which will only cascade downwards. :(

DouglasDigby
to me and you it's a "Different bl~~dy argument" but, since when has that stopped the legal profession!!!.

Does anybody really believe it would be any different under a different government? :rolleyes:

[Chugalug2]

Does anybody really believe it would be any different under a different government?

What's that got to do with the price of fish? This government has a basic dilemma, to stay in power it must seem to be against continually raising taxes. We all know that isn't the case, but the taxes raised are stealth ones with a perceived low political cost. But it still has very expensive tastes, for the answer to all shortcomings in Social Welfare, Education and Health issues is to throw more and more of our money at them. The shortfall has to be made up by the Departments that the members of this government have a historic antipathy to. Chief amongst these by far is Defence. Their problem is that the 'solution' of reducing the size of our Armed Forces to match the reduced resources available is already at or below minimum for the ever increasing tasks placed upon them by the same government. The 'something' that has consequently to give is the quantity and quality of equipment needed. Add in the particularly high level of plain and simple incompetence exhibited by those trying to pull off this conjuring trick and the result is the present dangerous shambles. That they are aided and abetted in this treachery by the professional heads of our Armed Forces, who conveniently see their roles as "Orders must be obeyed at all times without question" is to my mind the real scandal of this scandalous situation. That the potential saviours of the Nation would appear to be the Judges and the Coroners speaks well of them and volumes about Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

[general all rounder]

DouglasDigby: How about enough enough functional kit (body armour, NVG, weapons, etc) to do the task? How about Nimrod fuel leaks or ESF for Hercs, acceptable armoured personnel carriers........????

This all comes down to how much money the Treasury is prepared to provide. Historically, Defence Budgets received 2.5% of GDP during peace, 6% during medium-scale regional wars and up to 50% during Total War (although it's quite difficult to measure during Total War). The current Defence Budget is equivalent to 2.4% of GDP - go figure. If the government wants to prosecute 2 medium scale campaigns and ensure that all of the kit is the best all of the time- which as you know is quite difficult, it will have to provide more than peace time levels of funding. The issue is not about 'staff officers' at the MOD (although the way the MOD is organised could certainly be improved), most of whom have themselves been on the front-line only too recently, it is about political will. The Public and the much of the media does not support the military campaigns therefore there is no political will to fund them properly (at the expense of health and education) - the MOD is caught in the middle. If you are going to criticise then at least get your targetting right. Even better why not make a positive case for what the military is doing to as many of your family, friends and neighbours as possible to create the conditions for political will to be hardened? If Defence spending is to go up, the first question voters have to ask of prospective MPs at the next election is "Will you increase Defence Spending?".

[OilCan]

Chug; What's that got to do with the price of fish? This government has a basic dilemma,

...and if it was a different government, the difference would be....?....:confused::confused::confused:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Historically, Defence Budgets received 2.5% of GDP during peace

My, what short memories we have. How long qualifies for historic?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/22/ndefence22.xml


Government figures show that 2.5 per cent of the UK's GDP — or around £32 billion — was likely to be spent on defence in 2005/6 compared with 4.4 per cent in 1987/88.


OK, that report was over a year ago but nothing has factually changed since.

[Beatriz Fontana]

Did anyone else hear Swiss Des being eaten alive by the Humph on this morning's Today Programme? Blimey, the bloke has to go... Swiss, that is.

[Chugalug2]

Quote:
Chug; What's that got to do with the price of fish? This government has a basic dilemma,
...and if it was a different government, the difference would be....?....:confused::confused::confused:


OilCan, why is this always the default response from the apologists for this particular government? Every administration has to answer to its own record, good, bad or indifferent. This rhetoric is surely admission in itself that the present one is indifferent to say the least. When their record on Defence is raised, or for that matter on any other department, it hardly does them credit if the knee jerk answer is that no other government would be any different. It is an illogical stance. If you think that some previous Labour governments have been quite strong on Defence, ie they had a coherent policy, I would agree. To my mind this one hasn't, it is full of self contradictions that will rebound on them. Unfortunately in the meantime it is already rebounding on us.

[richatom]

Perfect kit all the time for all 3 Services? Why have only 80 aircraft on a carrier? Surely 80 000 000 would be much safer. Infantry should have electro-magnetic force fields issued immediately, never mind that the cost would be a trillion trillion pounds!



There have been some cases recently where I think your point is valid. For example, in the case of the Coroner who recently decided that the MOD were at fault for the death of an SAS Captain during HALO training because they "failed to provide £50 radios". Surely the officer had done his static line course beforehand, and surely it was drummed into his bone to check his canopy, and pull the reserve if in the slightest doubt? I don't understand at all why he should need an experienced soldier on the ground to take a decision like that for him. During my static-line course at Brize Norton it was absolutely drummed into us to pull the cord if we had the slightest doubt, and we were never bollocked for pulling it prematurely (which happened occasionally). I did a few freefall jumps too with Danish jaegertruppe and it was no different there. I have no experience of current UK HALO training though so perhaps somebody might put me right on that.

But I do agree with Coroners verdicts in most of the other cases, which have usually revolved around body armour. If commanders on the ground decide that body armour is required, then everybody should have it. If there are not enough resources for everybody to have it, then the politicos should not have overridden ground commanders and the troops should not have been there.

[Bunker Mentality]

There are never enough resources to do everything we want, so decisions have to be made about priorities. In making those decisions, assessments of risk need to be made. Risks can be managed and reduced, but they can't always be eliminated. Often, however, the wisdom of accepting or rejecting a particular risk receives no attention at all from the wider public untill something goes wrong. By that time, the context in which the decision was taken to allocate resources in a particular way will have been forgotten, and the relative priorities prevailing at the time a decision was taken may have changed. The unwillingness of politicians and public alike to accept casualties in current operations is an example of this. So, a decision to prioritise, say, defensive aids for a fast-jet fleet over fire-retardent filling for transport ac fuel tanks looks very different today from when it was made n years ago. The 20/20 hindsight available to coroners and high court judges is, sadly, not available in reverse to those who have to make decisions now that will affect future capabilities.

One of the most important tools military commanders have is the ability to take calculated risks. Let us suppose that a commander chooses to use a particular aircraft in a support role during an operation, even though he knows it is carrying a number of defects. There is a war on, after all, and the commander assesses that the contribution this ac and crew could make to protecting the lives of troops on the ground, through increasing the likelihood of rapid success, outweighs the slightly increased risk to the aircrew invovled. Let us further suppose that everything goes to plan and everyone gets home safely in time for tea and medals. What have the public and the judge to say in this case?

Then look at the other alternative - the commander takes the same risk, but this time a combination of factors involving at least one of the known defects results in the loss of the aircraft and its crew. Fortunately, the work already done by this crew and others have helped set the conditions for the operation as a whole to succeed, but the tragic loss of the brave men and women on the aircraft causes outrage in the media. What have the public and the judge to say now?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the Wars end at the start of HERRICK 2 and TELIC 2 respectively; and isn’t that part of the problem? Armed peacekeeping in aid to Civil Power (the elected Governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively), I believe, has different legal requirements to a declared war. If it was a war (and the septics keep muddying the waters here), surely we wouldn’t be holding inquests for very loss of life?

This is where I see the responsibility under the discussed Judgement gravitating down Command Chains. In that context, I think Bunker Mentality makes some very valid points.

[Chugalug2]

Bunker Mentality makes a very good presentation of why we are where we are, and in the main I accept the thrust of his argument. Let us take as an example the issue of Hercules aircraft not being fitted with ESF. 40 years after this fleet was created it has only now been so fitted, and not completely at that. Why was this when the very air force through which they were obtained (negotiations with Lockheed were, IIRC, via USAF for reasons which I do not recall but assume were IAW US law) was then fitting it as standard in its own fleet? Well financial of course, but to pick up on Bunker's point because;
a. The cost would have been in $US, a very big problem then (the K was stuffed with UK electronics to lower the dollar cost)
b. The only war the RAF then contemplated was WW3, and ESF was not going to save any transport aircraft jumped by the Red Airforce.
c. There was, and still is, a capacity cost to ESF which would have had an adverse effect on the worldwide strategic capability of the fleet then being exploited.
However, the job of the Air Staff and the responsibility of Air Officers is to continuously review capability and future requirements. I would say that by the time the J was being contemplated, let alone ordered this would have flagged up a deficiency in a fleet that was to be put more and more into a hot tactical front-line. That it was decided (for it surely was) not to fit ESF as part of the build was an abrogation of those responsibilities. Calls, both formal and informal, from the work face drawing attention to this deficiency that were effectively fobbed off merely add to that abrogation. It is that abrogation, writ large, that is at the core of this issue. It is one thing to balance the 'wish list' to resources, it is quite another to supply kit unfit for purpose merely to conform to government spending policy.

[BEagle]

From today's The Sunday Times:

POLICE and the Crown Prosecution Service are taking legal advice on whether Geoff Hoon, the former defence secretary, could be held liable for a soldier’s death in Iraq.

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3736571.ece