Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853
BBC said:
The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can sue the government for damages 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.
What do we think of this?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.
I think I agree with the govt but would like to see the full text first. From what I have seen in summary I agree with the govt - with the caveat that reasonable levels of protective equipment need to be provided. I have no problems with troops going into tough places. However, out of a squad of 10, if 9 had full kit and 1 had part kit due to shortages, I think there is a level of liability.
IroningMan said:
The MoD needs to be taught that it cannot take advantage of the morale, motivation and commitment of the British Soldier in order to get away with sending him into combat with equipment that has been proven to be inadequate.
[Devils advocate] How do you define adequate vs. inadequate? Do they need enough gear that there are zero fatalities in war?[/Devils advocate]mrmr96 said:
IroningMan said:
The MoD needs to be taught that it cannot take advantage of the morale, motivation and commitment of the British Soldier in order to get away with sending him into combat with equipment that has been proven to be inadequate.
[Devils advocate] How do you define adequate vs. inadequate? Do they need enough gear that there are zero fatalities in war?[/Devils advocate]Zero casualties is not possible, but fitness for purpose is: denial and arse-covering get people hurt.
It is - but Snatch wasn't intended to provide it, it was intended to provide protection against bricks, bottles, petrol bombs and the odd sniper with an Armalite. It took far too long to accept that the requirement wasn't quite the same and that Basra didn't have as much in common with Belfast as it was supposed to - and that no amount of wishful thinking was going to change that.
Of course it could have been worse: we could have deployed Saxon...
Of course it could have been worse: we could have deployed Saxon...
So, does this mean that any relative will be able to sue someone, if a person is killed in a car accident, at work, etc?
I saw one of the sisters on TV this morning and she was asked if they were suing on behalf of the dead soldiers daughter. She avoided answering and said it wasn't about the money, even though it does seem to be.
I saw one of the sisters on TV this morning and she was asked if they were suing on behalf of the dead soldiers daughter. She avoided answering and said it wasn't about the money, even though it does seem to be.
I have mixed views about this. I really don't buy into some of this suing business in relation to war, PTSD, suing the MOD etc.
how do you prove liability? yes the mod have a duty of care to provide equipment fit for purpose, no question.
however, how prepared can you be for the eventualities of conflict? fit for purpose armour at the start or anticipateed levels of weaponry in conflict is one thing, the actualities could be very different and how do you prepare for that?
The key for me would be in the MOD "knowingly" failed to repair or provide equipment suitable for combat. if field reports strongly suggested as much then the mod does imho need to answer questions. if something is not suitable though, how easy is it to replace or improve in time to be useful?
I'm just not totally sure about willful negligence...I am prepared to be corrected on this.
how do you prove liability? yes the mod have a duty of care to provide equipment fit for purpose, no question.
however, how prepared can you be for the eventualities of conflict? fit for purpose armour at the start or anticipateed levels of weaponry in conflict is one thing, the actualities could be very different and how do you prepare for that?
The key for me would be in the MOD "knowingly" failed to repair or provide equipment suitable for combat. if field reports strongly suggested as much then the mod does imho need to answer questions. if something is not suitable though, how easy is it to replace or improve in time to be useful?
I'm just not totally sure about willful negligence...I am prepared to be corrected on this.
What a pleasant surprise to see that this thread is, thus far, wall to wall reasoned debate and sensible, balanced opinions, and no OMG HOOMIN RIGHTS NONSENSE Daily Mail cobblers.
I had some reservations about the claims, but the judgment is heavily caveated and battlefield judgments are supposed to remain unchallengeable. As many have pointed out above, the troops were sent into danger with equipment that the Government ought to have realised was unsuitable, and that just sucks.
I had some reservations about the claims, but the judgment is heavily caveated and battlefield judgments are supposed to remain unchallengeable. As many have pointed out above, the troops were sent into danger with equipment that the Government ought to have realised was unsuitable, and that just sucks.
The only surprising thing about this for me is that it has taken so long, especially in light of the 2009 Haddon-Cave report.
It remains the fact that the MOD have serially and knowingly put people into danger with equipment not fit for purpose and then have tried to weasel their way out, despite test cases going back to the late 1980s.
It is a fact that the 'Safety Case' had been steamrollered into submission from the early '90s onwards and that this resulted in avoidable deaths.
For example:
Chinook ZD576 lost on the Mull in 1994
Tornado ZG710 lost on the Kuwaiti border 2003
Hercules XV179 lost in Iraq 2005
Nimrod XV230 lost over Afghanistan 2006
Furthermore, when people have pointed out that the MOD have been failing in their legal Duty of Care, they have been moved sideways or otherwise silenced. For example refusal to fly an a/c into a SAM threat area because the a/c was not fitted with counter-measures (despite the fact that such countermeasures existed and were available for fitment) resulted in damage to at least one career.
However, this is nothing new on the part of the MOD. Witness their absolute refusal to accept the existence (and causal factors) of PTSD post Operation CORPORATE. Witness their absolute refusal to accept the existence of Gulf War Syndrome post Operation GRANBY.
The Military Covenant isn't merely broken, it was torn up and thrown away years ago. It's about time that was put right.
It remains the fact that the MOD have serially and knowingly put people into danger with equipment not fit for purpose and then have tried to weasel their way out, despite test cases going back to the late 1980s.
It is a fact that the 'Safety Case' had been steamrollered into submission from the early '90s onwards and that this resulted in avoidable deaths.
For example:
Chinook ZD576 lost on the Mull in 1994
Tornado ZG710 lost on the Kuwaiti border 2003
Hercules XV179 lost in Iraq 2005
Nimrod XV230 lost over Afghanistan 2006
Furthermore, when people have pointed out that the MOD have been failing in their legal Duty of Care, they have been moved sideways or otherwise silenced. For example refusal to fly an a/c into a SAM threat area because the a/c was not fitted with counter-measures (despite the fact that such countermeasures existed and were available for fitment) resulted in damage to at least one career.
However, this is nothing new on the part of the MOD. Witness their absolute refusal to accept the existence (and causal factors) of PTSD post Operation CORPORATE. Witness their absolute refusal to accept the existence of Gulf War Syndrome post Operation GRANBY.
The Military Covenant isn't merely broken, it was torn up and thrown away years ago. It's about time that was put right.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 19th June 16:09
rohrl said:
Tony Blair wanted to go war in Iraq, he can pay the damages. There is no way that taxpayers (including the injured soldiers) should have to fork out again.
No. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm
He secured a cross party govt majority to go to war.
Grenoble said:
rohrl said:
Tony Blair wanted to go war in Iraq, he can pay the damages. There is no way that taxpayers (including the injured soldiers) should have to fork out again.
No. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm
He secured a cross party govt majority to go to war.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff