Court rules relatives can sue over British soldier deaths

Image
AFP London
Last Updated : Jun 20 2013 | 12:40 AM IST
Relatives of British soldiers killed while fighting in Iraq can sue the government for negligence and claim damages under human rights law, the Supreme Court in London ruled today.
Lawyers for the family members, who can now proceed to trial, said the ruling means the Ministry of Defence owes a duty of care to properly equip service personnel who go to war.
Debi Allbutt, who had brought one of the claims over the death of her 35-year-old husband Stephen in March 2003, said she "jumped up and down with joy" when she heard the news.
"We've proven they (the government) owe a duty of care, and they can no longer hide behind the idea of combat immunity -- the soldiers have a right to life under human rights law," she said.
She added: "If they properly equip the armed forces and look after the people in uniform better then they won't have to fight these legal battles. That's all we've wanted."
However, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said he was "very concerned at the wider implications of this judgment".
It "could ultimately make it more difficult for our troops to carry out operations and potentially throws open a wide range of military decisions to the uncertainty of litigation", he said.
The case concerns three sets of claims arising from the deaths and injuries of British soldiers serving in Iraq between 2003 and 2006.
Allbutt brought her claim alongside soldiers Daniel Twiddy and Andrew Julien over a "friendly fire" incident in March 2003.
Her husband and another soldier were killed and Twiddy and Julien were injured when their Challenger 2 tank was hit by another.
The claimants argued that the soldiers were not trained sufficiently and the tanks lacked the technology and equipment that would have prevented the incident.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had argued for the claims to be struck out on the principle of combat immunity, which excludes liability for negligence for those involved in active service.
But the Supreme Court judges rejected this in a majority verdict.
The MoD also argued it would not be "fair, just or reasonable" to impose a duty of care on the ministry in the circumstances of these cases, but the judges also rejected this.
Another set of claims was brought by relatives of Phillip Hewett, 21, and Lee Ellis, 23, who were killed in two separate incidents in 2005 and 2006 when their lightly armoured Snatch Land Rovers hit roadside bombs.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jun 20 2013 | 12:40 AM IST

Next Story