Is 'Public Interest Lawyers' an oxymoron?
Discussion
'Sickening claims that British troops executed innocent Iraqis in cold blood were sensationally dropped at a war crimes inquiry yesterday.
After a year-long inquiry costing taxpayers £22million, the case fell apart when relatives admitted there was no hard evidence the insurgents were unlawfully killed in UK custody.
Lawyers for the families accepted the men were killed during a ferocious firefight, dubbed the Battle of Danny Boy, near Basra in 2004.
The public inquiry was announced in 2009 after a long legal battle between Iraqi families – represented by Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers – and the Ministry of Defence. The Birmingham-based firm has already been paid millions from the public purse.
But in a statement, Public Interest Lawyers said: ‘Following the conclusion of the military evidence and current state of disclosure by the MoD, it is our view there is insufficient material to establish that Iraqi civilians were unlawfully killed whilst in the custody of British troops.
A Whitehall source said: ‘The taxpayer has been led a merry dance by PIL whose charlatan clients have, it seems, simply falsified accounts – all underpinned by public money. Human rights lawyers have cost taxpayers a staggering amount of money.’
Mr Shiner, 57, has made his name pursuing British soldiers through the courts over alleged war crimes in Iraq. He has represented alleged victims of abuses by troops, including relatives of Baha Mousa, who died in 2003 in British custody.'
For myself, I believe our troops while operating overseas should have immunity from any legal action in this country. The US has got this right.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585838/La...
After a year-long inquiry costing taxpayers £22million, the case fell apart when relatives admitted there was no hard evidence the insurgents were unlawfully killed in UK custody.
Lawyers for the families accepted the men were killed during a ferocious firefight, dubbed the Battle of Danny Boy, near Basra in 2004.
The public inquiry was announced in 2009 after a long legal battle between Iraqi families – represented by Phil Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers – and the Ministry of Defence. The Birmingham-based firm has already been paid millions from the public purse.
But in a statement, Public Interest Lawyers said: ‘Following the conclusion of the military evidence and current state of disclosure by the MoD, it is our view there is insufficient material to establish that Iraqi civilians were unlawfully killed whilst in the custody of British troops.
A Whitehall source said: ‘The taxpayer has been led a merry dance by PIL whose charlatan clients have, it seems, simply falsified accounts – all underpinned by public money. Human rights lawyers have cost taxpayers a staggering amount of money.’
Mr Shiner, 57, has made his name pursuing British soldiers through the courts over alleged war crimes in Iraq. He has represented alleged victims of abuses by troops, including relatives of Baha Mousa, who died in 2003 in British custody.'
For myself, I believe our troops while operating overseas should have immunity from any legal action in this country. The US has got this right.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585838/La...
Reported:
'Three years of investigations in to scores of allegations against British troops by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) has so far resulted in a single fine for one soldier.
Sapna Malik, a partner at Leigh Day, said: "We are committed to representing people from around the world where an apparent injustice has been committed.
“It is imperative for the validity of the British Army that as lawyers we ensure these cases are thoroughly investigated and, if there has been unlawful behaviour, that it is identified, victims receive justice, the perpetrators are brought to account and lessons are learned.”
To MY way of thinking, the imperative for the British army is to not lose a conflict and to suffer minimal casualties. Anything else is a nice to have. The concept that we tax payers are funding this travesty is s
te.
If other countries don't want our military assistance on a best efforts, no sue basis than fk them, we will stay out. Let them kill each other - we should certainly have stayed out of both Iraq and Afgan.
This financially crippling charade that the UK always acts whiter than white must be brought under control and back to reality.
'Three years of investigations in to scores of allegations against British troops by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) has so far resulted in a single fine for one soldier.
Sapna Malik, a partner at Leigh Day, said: "We are committed to representing people from around the world where an apparent injustice has been committed.
“It is imperative for the validity of the British Army that as lawyers we ensure these cases are thoroughly investigated and, if there has been unlawful behaviour, that it is identified, victims receive justice, the perpetrators are brought to account and lessons are learned.”
To MY way of thinking, the imperative for the British army is to not lose a conflict and to suffer minimal casualties. Anything else is a nice to have. The concept that we tax payers are funding this travesty is s
te.If other countries don't want our military assistance on a best efforts, no sue basis than f
k them, we will stay out. Let them kill each other - we should certainly have stayed out of both Iraq and Afgan.This financially crippling charade that the UK always acts whiter than white must be brought under control and back to reality.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff