Judge warning MoD over equipment
Thread Starter
Judge warning MoD over equipment
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....
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....
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
Skua
Thread Starter
MoD to appeal Judge's ruling.....
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....
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....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
One of the fundamentals of the HRA is the right to life
then their families can take the government to court for failing under the HRA.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
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."
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Sending British soldiers on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could breach their human rights, a High Court judge has ruled.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
welcomed the court's decision and said it would be of great significance to
military families
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.
same human rights as any other British citizens and must be properly equipped
when sent into battle.
The MOD must fight this barking mad judgement.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: OTA E
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The important word in the judge's pronouncement is 'could', surely
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''.
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''.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Transiting the M27
Age: 50
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cambs
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.