Judge rules Human Rights apply to Soldiers in theatre

#2
I was just about to post this

Sending British soldiers on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could breach their human rights, a High Court judge has ruled.

Mr Justice Collins said human rights legislation could apply to military personnel on active service.

The ruling could have impact on the way future military inquests are held.

An attempt by the government at the same hearing to restrict critical language used by coroners at such inquests was rejected by the court.

The request for inquest guidelines came in a test case relating to Scottish soldier Pte Jason Smith, 32, who died of heatstroke in Iraq.

Lawyers for the Ministry of Defence had argued that it was "impossible" to give soldiers on active service "the benefits of the Human Rights Act".

But the High Court ruled service personnel were entitled to some legal protection "wherever they may be".

The decision was a legal defeat for Defence Secretary Des Browne, who also had his bid to ban coroners from using phrases such as "serious failure" in verdicts rejected.
 
#5
Good to see the HRA finally being put to some decent use rather than protecting terrorists / criminals / chavs.

Get in that dock Mr Browne 8)
 
#6
Aged 32, Jason Smith had served with the Territorial Army since 1992 and came from Hawick. A soldier in the 52nd Lowland Regiment, he was serving in Iraq attached to the 1st Battalion, The King's Own Scottish Borderers. He was unmarried but had a long-term partner.
 
#8
Very good news indeed, common sense now with judicial backing.

service personnel were entitled to some legal protection "wherever they may be"
Though when i read the topic heading one thing worried me, bloody liberals or biffs using it as an excuse to kick poop into the fan as per previous examples of the rights act being taken too literally. Good to see the common sense has extended to war is tough, but dont kick the guys when they are already down.

Though that "some" may be an excuse for whitehall to still do bugger all.
 
#9
This is why lawyers should not be allowed to run anything big or serious.

Many see everything in Legal terms and try to produce "solutions" on paper and in the courts, not real life.

Oh, hang on...........
 
#10
This has backfired tremendously! :twisted:

And Swiss Des is supposed to be a lawyer? He obviously has as much grasp of the law as he does of military matters and Scottish affairs....and second hand cars!

Families will get legal aid and access to documents as well.

To cap it all:

The MoD confirmed it would be appealing against the ruling that sending British soldiers into battle with defective equipment could breach human rights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7342324.stm

What message does that send to the public and to the Armed Forces? Personnel will risk their lives in battle but have the right to expect to be equipped properly.
 
#11
The government is trying to appeal against us having human rights. o_O
 
#12
MrPVRd said:
To cap it all:

The MoD confirmed it would be appealing against the ruling that sending British soldiers into battle with defective equipment could breach human rights.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7342324.stm

What message does that send to the public and to the Armed Forces? Personnel will risk their lives in battle but have the right to expect to be equipped properly.
You really have to wonder what kind of folk sit in those fancy offices in whitehall who appeal against human rights for troops. I can understand them fighting the case, but that just shows major lack of attention to reality.
 
#14
I would appreciate some of the posters here addressing the central points of the 'Soldiers DO have Human Rights' thread - either on here or on that thread.
 
#15
just saw that mong Browne on the news defending his actions ... he was conveniently standing in front of a wall ... that could have been very handy under other circumstances!
 
#16
While a greater emphasis on proper equipment can only be a good thing, using the HRA seems a pretty fraught way to do it: after all, the HRA also protects a right to life and a right to a family life. How is that compatible with sending people into situations which have a high risk of being fatal and, of necessity, separating them from their families?
 
#17
To my mind, and it's a bit geffuddled at the moment, it's about time the goberment got it's cards marked. It's not about conducting risk assessments, it's about the people who send us there, having a get out clause, so they don't have to spend money as well as using money as an excuse, when the guys get hurt or die. The RAF crash, amongst others (No I'm not RAF), spring to mind.

No-one is advocating 'risk assessments', all the soldiers and their families ask is that if you are sending someone in harms way that you provide the best equipment that is available, whatever the cost.

Or shall we ask MP's to downgrade from Sky TV to terrestrial, using the argument, that they will get up to date news eventually. It may be out of date when they get it, but it was once breaking news?

Until the MoD are hit punitively, they will not change their procurement stance. Its a fact that new body armour may cost, lets say 13 squillion, but the actual cost of dead soldiers, in terms of payments to families and widows is less. Anyone who thinks that, that is not a factor or a consideration, is I am afraid in my opinion kidding themselves.

There that's my pennies worth, scrambled brain or not.
 
#19
Don't get excited. I envisage some emergency legislation in the very near future to render the judgement irrelevant.

Anybody know if this has any impact on the corporate manslaughter laws? Is Swiss Des still imune or could he be sharing a cell with Tommy Sheridan some time soon.
 
#20
Ancient_Mariner said:
Don't get excited. I envisage some emergency legislation in the very near future to render the judgement irrelevant.

Anybody know if this has any impact on the corporate manslaughter laws? Is Swiss Des still imune or could he be sharing a cell with Tommy Sheridan some time soon.
Previous attempts to pass legislation to effectivly overturn Court Rulings has been tried in the past, can't remember what for but I suspect asylum seekers. It went castrophicaly wrong first run out in the Courts. Judges tend not to like Governments that move the goal posts AFTER the Courts have ruled.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top