You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Britain is Lost, Cont'd - MoD Edition
2009-05-19
The UK Government Monday lost an appeal to overturn a court ruling that British soldiers can be covered by human rights laws while on the battlefield. It centred on a test case brought by the family of Private Jason Smith, who died of heatstroke while serving with the Territorial Army in Iraq in 2003.

The ruling means the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies to UK forces abroad - even in battle.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had said in a statement the Act could not be guaranteed in certain situations. "The Ministry of Defence has argued consistently that in the heat of battle during dynamic and fast moving military operations on foreign territory, the UK could not secure the rights and freedoms which the ECHR seeks to guarantee, " a spokesman for the MoD earlier said.

The ruling will could lead to more families wishing to sue the MoD for negligence. The legal process began with a judicial review requested by Private Smith's family, following the inquest into his death. The MoD accepted that the Human Rights Act applied to Private Smith, as he died on a British military base. However, in a judgement last April, the judge ruled more widely that the MoD had an obligation to avoid or minimise risks to the lives of its troops, wherever they were serving - even while on patrol or in battle.

Otherwise, he said it risked breaching the "right to life" enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The MoD appealed amid fears that the judgement raised serious questions over sending troops into combat abroad, because absolute protection could never be guaranteed on the battlefield.
Posted by:Seafarious

#6  A golden opportunity for the US to set up a foreign legion -- when the Brits give up on having a standing army, recruit the former soldiers into the US Foreign Legion and send them off. It'd be a pity to waste all those excellent squadies.
Posted by: Jonathan   2009-05-19 14:34  

#5  negligent about heat risk

I don't think negligent, but unprepared to fight outside NATO. Brit equipment was designed to fight the Russians in Northern Europe. Things like air conditioning was unneeded weight. In Iraq and Afghan, they were pumping outside air, through plastic tubes, into their uniforms to try to get some relief.
Posted by: ed   2009-05-19 08:10  

#4  We'll just send money in the future.

Arms for peace: U.S., Brits give $9M in equipment to Tanzanians for peacekeeping in Darfur
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-05-19 07:39  

#3  Odd that the British military would be negligent about heat risk (though, reading Yon, they actually are) when they have always been absolutists about foot care.
Indeed, as MikeK says, the next step is the obligation to avoid the risk of bullets and bombs by avoiding battle, or maybe by dissolving the forces.
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-05-19 07:39  

#2  The MoD appealed amid fears that the judgement raised serious questions over sending troops into combat abroad, because absolute protection could never be guaranteed on the battlefield.

...Well, that's the point.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2009-05-19 05:17  

#1  Well see, if they hadn't been negligent in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. Dying of heat is one of the most easily preventable deaths ever.
Posted by: gromky   2009-05-19 04:32  

00:00