Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue

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.

BBC News - Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue
Good news (eventually) for the families of those killed in Iraq, but what about those killed in Snatch Rovers & Vectors in Afghanistan?
I imagine the precedent will be set, regardless of where the injury occurred as the issue is the protection, or not, afforded.
I imagine the precedent will be set, regardless of where the injury occurred as the issue is the protection, or not, afforded.
So relly's of those killed in Shermans during WW2 when the petrol tanks went up (a clear and acknowledged design flaw) will also be able to claim?

I do worry where all this compensation bollocks will end? Are we to apply the nth degree of health and safety legislation to the battlefield?

Of course I have sympathy for the families concerned but at the end of the day it will again be the taxpayers who will pick up the tab for all this.

This judgement will have far and reaching consequences and will not be cheap.

Another example what about those killed in land rovers and armoured vehicles in NI by culvert bombs? Where will it end? Is there to be a time limit?

Are those killed in NI or in Normandy not to count whilst those in Iraq and the Afghan will?
Even if the families win and the MOD doles out £millions, any lessons still won't be learnt. They never generally are

The families of those killed will receive compensation, a load of lawyers will trouser some huge wedge and the already meagre MOD budget will take a hit (albeit in the scale of the overall budget it's pittance, but you know what I mean)
Result for the familys of the fallen.

Where will it end? The far reaching consequences are that we will be bound (even more) by ridiculous HSE regulations that the UK will not be able to undertake warfare. What is next, non-lethal bullets in case the familys of the enemy sue us?
Don't argue with me - take it up with the Judge.


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I wonder iof Blair & Co factored in these costs when:

a. deciding to send an invasion force into Iraq

b. when allowing his wife to run amok with the Human Rights legislation, opening up a whole new field of money making for lawyers.

I wonder if the Treasury will try to take any compensation from the MoD budget?

BTW, in my opinion, no vehicle is safe in a war zone - if a small bomb won't take it out, then a bigger bomb will be set until the required effect is reached.


Book Reviewer
I know, let's buy lots and lots of vehicles, just in case - we can have some specially for resert work, others for the jungle, others where there is a threat from IEDs, RPGs and SAA but nothing else (Mastiff?) and others, well, for everything.

It's not possible, nor sensible to do that. The Snatch was the best available at the time - not saying much, but it was.

What would happen now if something happened in a PB in the middle of the night, and the Commander gets everyone out to fight off an enemy assault - maybe partly dressed, maybe not in full IPE? Would he/MOD be sued? Would the Taliban be sued for not playing the game? It's a very strange decision indeed.

The other point is that of application. How far back will this go? To wares started by PM B;air, as lots of people don't like him? To the Falklands, as lots don't like th elate MRs T? To Korea? Why not Gallipoli? The Somme? Singapore? And as for the BEF and Dunkirk - talk about under-equipped....

This one will run and run, and enrich a lot of Lawyers, to no other effect whatsoever.
JBM what were they supposed to do? Foot slog? With 40,000 more boots on the ground maybe but distances needed to be travled. The MOD had no choice, there was no alternative, yes the LR was not an ideal issue, no argument. As was said, bigger veihicles bigger bombs. Not very long ago the 'safest' wheeled vehicle in the army was tradgically taken out by a roadside. With the greatest sympathys to the familys.
Big, circular argument that comes back to procurement and how we procure. FRES has produced ****-all, for instance, because of years and years of buggering about.

What we don't do, on the day that something enters service, is think, 'What's next?' We should. I know that's idealistic, but we should.
Madness - an appalling precedent. War is not safe, end. If you don't want to get involved in a dangerous activity, don't join up. Blokes had to fly in unsafe bombers over Germany in WW2, etc. Who can really decide what is an unreasonable risk? Not a bloke with a wig on his head, for sure - a bloke with a helmet on has a lot more idea.
I would hazard a guess to say more people were saved by the limited protection offered by SNATCH than were killed and injured in them.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
quiller The Intelligence Cell 7
S The Intelligence Cell 5
L The Intelligence Cell 71

Similar threads

Latest Threads