Has the human rights Act effected the rules of engagment?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by spooner, Feb 8, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Im a third year law student at portsmouth uni who is about to attend my rcb briefing. Im writing my dissertation on how the Human Rights Act has effected the rules of engagement. The subject is of great interest to me and i would appriciate any comments or insights into it.

    I understand the HRA only effects troops in the UK so I only have the conflict in Northern Ireland to reference. I was wondering though if troops are under additional pressure by worrying whether they will be prosecuted in the European Court of Justice for actions undertaken in the defence of the realm serving abroad in Op Telic or Afghanistan. Cheers.
  2. spooner, if it only affects troops in the UK, can they be prosecuted for anything that happens in iraq or afghanistan?
  3. without wishing to be pedantic if you are a 3rd year law student you may wish to check the meanings of "affected" and "effected"
  4. The HRA does affect any serving British Soldier worldwide.

    It's not just the enemy we need to worry about now, it's Bliars mates in the legal profession.

    My humble opinion is that if you take up arms against us, you should suffer the invariable fatal consequences, even if we find the scrote several months later in Tipton.
  5. Human Rights are truly and unequivocably for massive homs. FACT.
  6. You are a law student. I assume therefor that you will one day be a lawyer. Your choice of profession proves beyond all reasonable doubt that you are not human and have no rights.
  7. How has the HRA affected the ROE?

    Simple... we just hide the bodies more effectively!
  8. Just like a terrorist!
  9. Or a paedophile..
  10. ROE are policy not Law. Law allows the right to self defence so no issue.
  11. Go and ask Cherie Bliar, her feckin word seems to be law when it comes to human rights. Dont matter what squaddies do. In the eyes of the politicians in this country,if it gets them a few votes and column inches they'll feck us over in a heartbeat. :roll:
  12. *As mentioned above, ROE is based upon law, specifically, that of self-defence and it gives the soldier no special dispensation from the law. If you are 3rd year, you should have done/are doing criminal law. There was a homicide case regarding a soldier who fire upon and killed some joy riders who drove through a VCP w/o stopping. HE was ok to fire when the vehicle was coming at him, but he was no longer acting in self-defence when he continued firing after the vehicle had passed him by. Look it up; some of the comments in the case might prove useful.

    Unless the HRA has affected criminal law and the law of self-defence, then I doubt it has had any effect on ROE.

    *Not currently, nor have ever been, a British Soldier.

    Edit: I think its R v Clegg.
  13. You may only shoot someone with bullets that have been polished with braso, not windoleen.....
    :numberone: :numberone: :threaten: :threaten:
  14. Cheers R v Clegg is pretty useful. Unfortunatly after the reforms of the ECj following the treaty of nice, countries in opposition to the war in iraq particularly France have attempted to use the HRA as a platform to attack the reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq (Gentle v prime minister 2006).

    The european court of human rights in Martin v UK 2006 attempted to retry a soldier who had recieved a court martial for conduct undisclosed. The ECHR ruled the court martial a mistrial on lack of evidence. It all depends if we want to stay in the EU and listen to them. In this case we ignored there decision. However since they became the highest court of appeal in every member country they are pushing for increased control.