And I do believe this carries more weight....
MoD takes blame for 14 military deaths in Nimrod blast
Admission that the spy plane was 'not airworthy' creates a legal landmark
The Ministry of Defence has made a landmark legal admission that it failed to ensure the safety of 14 servicemen who were killed when their Nimrod spy plane crashed in the British
military's largest single loss of life since the Falklands war.
Lawyers predicted that the MoD's unusual decision to admit that it had breached the duty of care it owed to the men could have important ramifications for the families of other deceased servicemen and women bringing separate legal claims against the government.
The surprise admission is made in defence documents filed by the MoD at the High Court in response to a legal action brought by the mothers of two of the Nimrod's crew, Sergeant Benjamin Knight, 25, and Flight Lieutenant Steven Swarbrick, 28.
The mothers allege that the government did not offer adequate protection to their sons by failing to minimise the risks of a fire breaking out on board the RAF Nimrod XV230, which exploded on 2 September 2006, in Afghanistan, killing all on board.
Evidence presented at the inquest into the men's deaths highlighted a series of faults with the plane, which exploded after an airborne refuelling operation. Coroner Andrew Walker heard how the plane had no fire detection and suppression system and that its ventilation ducts were prone to overheat.
The MoD's admission is likely to trigger six-figure compensation payouts to the Knight and Swarbrick families and give hope to other families of the Nimrod crew who are bringing an action against the MoD in the Scottish courts. The MoD is also facing claims that it equipped troops with inadequate body armour and poorly protected Land Rovers.
John Cooper, QC, the families' barrister, denied that the case was primarily about compensation. "The families want accountability in this case," Cooper said. "That is their primary motive for pursuing this matter to the end."
The families maintain that the MoD failed to respect article two of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to life. Last year, a judge ruled that the ECHR imposed obligations on states to minimise the risks posed to service personnel, even when serving abroad.
In its defence document, the MoD contests the claim under article two, but accepts that there was a duty on it "to ensure the aircraft was airworthy" and admits "the aircraft was not airworthy". The document states: "The defendant owed to the deceased a duty of care and the accident was caused by a breach of that duty of care."
This week, the government will ground all Nimrods that have not had their engine bay hot-air ducts replaced, a move that lawyers suggest is recognition that the crash was an accident waiting to happen. "In our view, there is a minimum requirement that all equipment provided to personnel is fit for its intended purpose," said John Cronin, senior associate with Smithfield Partners.
"Just because a serviceman is operating in a theatre of war does not remove the government's responsibility under article two of the European Convention on Human Rights. The announcement by the MoD of its intention to withdraw the Nimrod fleet from service would seem to reflect its tacit acknowledgement that the aircraft is not safe."
A ruling by the High Court that the MoD breached article two would raise complex questions about the extent to which the government was liable for the deaths of some military personnel killed overseas. "If we are successful, there will have to be a change in thinking on the part of the MoD," Cronin said.
Graham Knight, the father of Ben Knight, said: "We are delighted with the fact they have realised they had no choice but to admit their failings, even if it has taken so long."
An MoD spokeswoman said: "When compensation claims are received, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the MoD has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid."