| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| UK : High Court rules under-equipped troops violates 'human rights' | |
| 2008-04-11 | |
The Defence Secretary, Des Browne, may appeal a High Court ruling that sending troops on patrol or into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan without adequate equipment could breach their human rights. The decision could open the way for the families of dead soldiers to sue the Ministry of Defence.
But Mr Justice Collins, sitting at the High Court in London, said that British servicemen and women were entitled to a measure of legal protection of their human rights "wherever they may be". He said: "There is a degree of artificiality in saying that a soldier is protected in a base or in a military hospital but is not protected if he steps outside that base. "It is difficult to see the rationale behind that so far as his protection is concerned." In a further blow to Mr Browne the judge also rejected his attempt to gag coroners in military inquests. Mr Browne wanted to ban coroners from using phrases such as "serious failure" when recording verdicts on soldiers who have died on active service. Lawyers for the Defence Secretary had claimed the phrase was tantamount to blaming the Government for the deaths of the servicemen and could be seen as deciding civil liability if the soldiers' families sued for compensation. The judge also said that soldiers' families should be entitled to legal aid and as full access as possible to military documents that were put before inquest hearings. He made his comments at the end of a test case involving the death of Private Jason Smith, 32, who died of heatstroke in Iraq. Pte Smith, from Roxburghshire, became ill in temperatures of 60C (140F) in August 2003 at the Al Amara stadium, southern Iraq. The Territorial Army recruit was attached to the 1st Battalion the King's Own Scottish Borderers (KOSB). The Ministry of Defence was granted permission to appeal against the ruling. Solicitor Jocelyn Cockburn, who represents Pte Smith's mother Catherine Smith, said: "This judgment means that British soldiers sent abroad have the same human rights as any other British citizens and they 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." She said parameters had now been set out for how inquests into deaths of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should be held in future. It meant soldiers' families would be given better access to military documents and names could no longer be deleted from documents in a wholesale manner, she said. Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey also supported the verdict, saying: "This shattering ruling for Des Browne will hopefully at last wake the Government up to equipment shortages on the frontline which threaten the lives of our troops." | |
| Posted by:mrp |
| #6 Barrister in the MOD: "Your lordship, in order for a British soldier to be considered adequately equipped, he would need approximately one billion pounds worth of equipment". Minister of Defense: "I see. And what is the budget for the army?" Barrister in the MOD:"One billion pounds." Minister of Defense: "I see. So we can only afford one soldier, then, eh?" Barrister in the MOD: "Afraid so, m'lord." Minister of Defense: "Very well then. Notify the MOD to sack all but one poor sod. At least he will be adequately equipped, though, so his human rights won't be violated" |
| Posted by: Rambler in California 2008-04-11 21:52 |
| #5 Just think of all the lawsuits this could bring from as far back as WWI. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-04-11 17:57 |
| #4 "If the British military can't show up to a battle with the proper gear, or at least adequate gear, then they shouldn't be there in the first place." That rules out military operations by pretty much every nation on earth, and if taken literally (given the shifting definitions of adequacy and the frictions of war) by everyone. We have found a formula for world peace ! But seriously, the real effect of this would indeed be to rule out anything but token military participation by anyone without massive resources or major skin in the game. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2008-04-11 17:56 |
| #3 lotp: Soldiers under fire really don't give a hoot for much of anything other than watching their buns, trying to inflict hurt on the guys trying to inflict hurt on them, and generally carrying out their orders. If the British military can't show up to a battle with the proper gear, or at least adequate gear, then they shouldn't be there in the first place. The European fantasy of an EU military that nobody wants to fund, equip, or man, needs to end before it turns into a disaster. And if EU nations refuse to fund their individual military, then they, too, need to be forced to face the facts that they can no longer play. They should go back to doing what they do best, having meetings and generating paperwork, and leave having a foreign policy to those nations willing to pay for a military. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-04-11 17:22 |
| #2 More likely it will end British participation in military operations entirely. Making this a human right places it under the political control of Brussels and the UN. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-04-11 13:10 |
| #1 The English have always short changed their military personnel, and government after government has been willing to trade lives for even petty amounts of money. For this reason, I approve of this decision because it hits them where it hurts, the pocketbook. In effect it says, "You spend money on the soldiers in the first place, or you will have to spend *more* money after the fact in making good." Perhaps it is the only thing that will get it through their thick skulled, chintzy, tight wad attitude. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-04-11 13:00 |