Battlefield not beyond the courtroom.
 

Why did the state ever try and drag this out? The Military Covenant is all well and good, and so is Armed Forces Day but lets face it - that is state window dressing; its all about saving money upfront (and afterwards).

BBC News - Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue

The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled. The case was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq. The court rejected the government's argument that the battlefield was beyond the reach of the legislation. Judges also ruled the Ministry of Defence owes soldiers a duty of care under the law of negligence.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...drover_304.jpg

Suspect theer is a syntax failure in Post 1 - however, to the point, so judges are now going to be experts in battle fighting are they - platoon commanders quizzed about decisions made under fire - what are we coming to.

Wanderoo,

Isn't it more about institutional failure and shortcomings re logistics etc? Subjective decision making by individuals in the heat of battle is another thing completely.

Aah, that's what they imply, but you have heard of mission creep - well did you ever know lawyers not try a similar concept. Where does the line get drawn - company, battalion. brigade..............MOD. Conversely how far down the chain will some lawyer go to try to get some claimant their "rights" - I am pretty sceptical. I hope I am wrong.

So presumably the families of aircrew who died flying such aircraft as the Fairey Battle, BP Defiant and Bristol Blenheim, or all those who were killed while flying as the squadron Tail-End Charlie during Fighting Area Attacks in 1940 will also get the same rights?

How far can this one go?

Unfortunately thats how the world is going Get used to it! Those operating airliners have long had to contend with the possibility of having to explain in court a decision taken under the extreme duress of a life threatening emergency. Roundels on the wing,it seems, doesn't change that.

Is this even new though? Didn't the Chief of the Defence Staff feel it necessary to demand legal advice a the outset of the Iraq war?

AlR - hear what you are saying but I note the MoD 'lawyers/spokesperson' replied to the ruling with a statement to the effect that "a variety of vehicles were provided and it was up to the commander to decide on the suitability of the vehicle for the task" or words to that effect. The day we get full transparency/responsibility will be the day a lot of senior people take sudden 'early retirement' (on full pension and with resettlement grant naturally). Sadly, I see the only effect of this ruling is a LOT of public money being moved into compensation-specialist law firms' pockets with many 'grieving relatives' being persuaded they now have a case. That money will have to come from somewhere, more than likely the same pot that needs to stretch to pay for the better equipment we would all like to see. :(

I hope that there will soon be a few robust precedents set about decisions made in the heat of the battle and that there is a difference between 'donkeys lead by men', and well meaning tough decision making. That is one end of the spectrum and MoD material incompetence is at the other. I can see that in the middle, any commander in the build up to conflict is going to need one eye on the mission needs and the other firmly fixed (more and more) on justifying even the smallest courses of action. Instead of second guessing the enemy, second guessing claim firms will possibly be the order of the day (is there a difference?).

Isn't the real danger though, extradition?

edit: Sandy, our posts crossed - I touched on what you said. Commanders will have to have one eye on being judged in hindsight by someone in urbane, calm and serene Chambers.

Al R
Second guessing lawyers will be far more dangerous than fighting the enemy. One only has to look at some of them that have pocketed £10K+ of "legal aid" to fight for compo to realise that the ambulance chasers will be all over this soon. This ruling is a disgrace and it will reduce commanders' options in the future; not only will we need political approval to take a course of action, as well as legal advice to make sure that the target is legit and that ROEs aren't being breached but then we will have to risk assessments on a course of action in case we are subsequently sued for a human rights breach. The sooner we get rid of Mr and Mrs Blair's law the better!! Cue pr00ne........

Surely this decision is a result of politicians who did not or would not authorise or fund preparations in relation to GW II.

I suspect that IF a war is suddenly declared under international law you have to go into battle with what you have on the day conflict, then there can be no comeback in law.

If in the case of planned or urgent operations under UN mandate and war is NOT declared or the so called War on Terror, if you do not provide equipment and supplies, you could be liable if I read this judgement correctly.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown killed these men.
Every advice they had were that snatch vehicles were a deathtrap, and other allied forces wouldn't have dreamt of equipping their troops so poorly.

One also has to ask, what did the Secretary of State for defence have to say about the deficiencies of equipment, did he make his unease felt also the Chief of the Defence Staff and their logistics chiefs say about inadequate equipment.

Now we have had this case, will equipment be sold off after the present operations, such as Jackal and Mastiff or will they be held in equipment stores, similarly clothing and protective equipment. Now that would make the bean counters unhappy.

Ever since "Crown Immunity" was binned, individuals have been able to sue the Government on the grounds of negligence (ISTR that was around the time of the 1974 HSAW Act).

From what I can see, this ruling, by the supreme court, simply extends the grounds to include the protections provided to human beings under the Human Rights Act.

Individuals may be given the right to sue but, that doesn't guarantee they'll win. If they can't prove (to the required standard) that the MoD acted in contravention of the HRA, they won't win.

However, on the other hand, if they can .........

All individuals and corporate bodies (including the government) are subject to the rule of the law of the land, however inconvenient that might be.

Well that's just my opinion, I'm no expert.

Rgds SOS

I tend to agree, and I think this move will ultimately be a good thing. It is one thing to take risk in the military context when that risk has been properly weighed and justified. Working from a baseline acceptance of knowingly deficient equipment is another thing altogether. I would expect that best endeavours would be made to provide the best resources available within the constraints of the time and any military imperative. All too often the military risk has just been casually accepted without any great thought. Our recent history in Afghanistan and Iraq is replete with such failings.

What happens when the job just needs to be done......no questions?

**** odds and bad equipment.

In that case what does it matter?

And when is the line drawn?

IMHO.....if this is driven to the root of the question we risk undermining ability for our forces to conduct war fighting.

We can always be sanctimonious, but horrible things happen in war....when the public loose this reality, we are in a bad situation!

Its not normal to kill others..........When you ask that it happens, what do think might occur?

(And other similar posts)


Although I don't know the details of the legal claim, I believe it important that Snatch had already been deemed unfit for purpose in a more benign theatre and a programme endorsed to replace it.

It follows that, as part of any threat and vulnerability assessment (mandated upon MoD), any proposed use of Snatch in ANY theatre would be red flagged and the question would be asked "Is the intended use in a more, or less, benign environment to that in which Snatch is already unfit for purpose?"

On numerous occasions Ministers, on MoD advice, stated Snatch was fit for this intended purpose, when they knew very well it was not. This is made irrefutable by the existence of a funded endorsed replacement programme, with a firm In Service Date. It matters not if the proposed replacement vehicle was fit for this new purpose. (The replacement programme was already very late when it was cancelled, in the early 00s, which actually makes matters worse).

And the opinion of individuals such as myself doesn't matter either. Those responsible had already decided it wasn't suitable. A slam dunk, in legal terms; although I imagine MoD will continue to lie and wiggle.

ralphmalph
 

I think some of us feel that the line should be drawn when the important job isn't done because of I also think that by putting them into stupid and with Rgds SOS

Perhaps if the costs were prohibitive, politicians would be less inclined to send us away on fights of folly and instead focus on the sort of op the majority of us joined for. The defence of the realm, not p@ssing off jinglies in countries with a history of wars of attrition.

Fox 3

"Tony Blair and Gordon Brown killed these men.
Every advice they had were that snatch vehicles were a deathtrap, and other allied forces wouldn't have dreamt of equipping their troops so poorly."

That's where the truth behind these rulings lie. A commander in the field is always going to be constrained by the equipment available to him. His problem comes when, as in Iraq/Afghan they know the threat IEDs and they know the weakness, the Snatch L/R. Whilst I remember reading many press reports that these commanders were "leaking" that they were unhappy to the press, it strikes me that few, if any, made any real noises back up the chain of command. Perhaps they did and were rebuffed, hence the press leaks. At the end of the day, were the commanders doing their duty to their men, or the politicians like Bliar and McBroon. I know it's not a position I would ever like to be in. Unfortunately, despite today's rulings, the pollies will never take responsibility.

Smudge