The supreme Court needs to reviewed

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.

While I do feel sorry for the relatives who have loved ones in places of conflict. However as an Ex soldier . I knew the risk and dangers I faced when I signed up. And the last thing I would want is my relatives suing my employers in thiis case The Military. Being in the military is hard work and you take risks whether in training or the real thing, When your in places of conflict . you minimise the risk as best you can. You can use intelligence on what ever sorte you going on but you cannot be 100% certain of what dirty tricks the enemy will use. especially when they are not governed by the geneva convention.

The relatives would already have been compensated. May be they should sue land rover as well.

Sorry Im not supportive of this action. If they want to sue someone then sue Tony Blair and Labour for sending our troops there. I just hope this does not open the flood gates.

And Finally if this succeeds it will mean the Courts have defeated the British Army something very few countries have done in the past.

This country is so risk adverse , we should just disband our military once and for all. Bloody HRA.

This is abject nonsense.

Its HSE gone mad again

well, its a tough one.

It something when personnel are having to beg, borrow or even worse, BUY there own kit whilst in war zones (or before going out there) as the stuff the MoD supplies, at times is not fit for purpose

Snatch Landrovers should never have been used, they weren't fit for purpose & that's the basis of the argument.

Snatch Landrovers should never have been used, they weren't fit for purpose & that's the basis of the argument.

So what's the alternative? Send them out on foot? Are we to have Human Rights advisors sitting alongside the commanding officer? They are suing the wrong people. They should be suing the ones who are blowing them up.

It all comes down to duty of care, surely and if the equipment was not fit for purpose then there has been a failure of duty of care.

View this is not purely about snatch land rovers. If this case succeeds then there will be a wide range of implications for the military on operations . Indeed not only the military include the police who are sent out to deal with armed criminals . The HRA laws should not be part and parcel on military operations. There is always an inherent risk . Even the warrior / warthog type vehicles etc do afford protection

It is ridiculous . Worse that the police suing their bosses because they tripped on a pavement .

Btw there is always a duty of care applied . But while those that died in that explosion . They would have been well switched on and up for what ever task they were embarking on at the time .

I see some suing saw their sons killed when they were in a challenger 2 tank which was hit by another challenger 2 tank on a blue on blue incident .

These things sadly happen . It's tragic I agree . But this has happened in every conflict since world war 1

It all comes down to duty of care, surely and if the equipment was not fit for purpose then there has been a failure of duty of care.

I assume this also applies to the soldiers that were killed in May when they were in a Mastiff and ran over a road side bomb. This vehicle was also according to you not fit for purpose but has been constructed specially for this terrain and warfare.

Should the family's of the soldiers killed by small ieds sue the mod for not supplying armoured suits to save them from having their limbs blown off.

War is a bloody awful thing. The conflict in Iraq was fast moving and both sides changed their tactics a number of times to counter each others movements.

H & s gone mad. I am also an ex service person and risks are risks. It is sad that soldiers have lost their lives but it's a bloody war and that is what happens.

Another victory for the terrorists

I assume this also applies to the soldiers that were killed in May when they were in a Mastiff and ran over a road side bomb. This vehicle was also according to you not fit for purpose but has been constructed specially for this terrain and warfare.

 

Should the family's of the soldiers killed by small ieds sue the mod for not supplying armoured suits to save them from having their limbs blown off.

 

War is a bloody awful thing. The conflict in Iraq was fast moving and both sides changed their tactics a number of times to counter each others movements.

 

H & s gone mad. I am also an ex service person and risks are risks. It is sad that soldiers have lost their lives but it's a bloody war and that is what happens.

I'm not offering any opinion on whether anything is or is not fit for purpose - I don't know anything about military equipment. I'm simply putting a legal construct on the issue.

I happen to think it could be the thin edge of a wedge though - all sorts of people do risky jobs and, if they do those jobs accepting the risks, then that should be an end to the matter. Doesn't matter if they are soldiers, fireman, F 1 drivers.......

I see some suing saw their sons killed when they were in a challenger 2 tank which was hit by another challenger 2 tank on a blue on blue incident .

These things sadly happen . It's tragic I agree . But this has happened in every conflict since world war 1

I know the parents, very well, of one of the lads, David Clarke, killed in that incident. They are simply trying to get the reports released to them regarding what happened. I bought him a pint before he deployed and stood head bowed when they brought him home.

At every turn they've been fobbed of or lied to. The mum is incredibly tenacious and brave and will not quite until see understands how her son died, whilst the father is a mere shadow of the man I knew.

I assume this also applies to the soldiers that were killed in May when they were in a Mastiff and ran over a road side bomb. This vehicle was also according to you not fit for purpose but has been constructed specially for this terrain and warfare.

 

Should the family's of the soldiers killed by small ieds sue the mod for not supplying armoured suits to save them from having their limbs blown off.

 

War is a bloody awful thing. The conflict in Iraq was fast moving and both sides changed their tactics a number of times to counter each others movements.

 

H & s gone mad. I am also an ex service person and risks are risks. It is sad that soldiers have lost their lives but it's a bloody war and that is what happens.

As am I and simply put the Snatch should never have been deployed to Iraq.

I first misread it as "The families of civilians killed in Iraq can sue the government for damages under the Human Rights Act."

I wonder if that'll ever come. That would be an interesting debate.

I first misread it as "The families of civilians killed in Iraq can sue the government for damages under the Human Rights Act."

 

I wonder if that'll ever come. That would be an interesting debate.

Don't be silly. It was a totally legal war that has bought peace and stability and no hint of sectarian killing at all. Honest.

Much as I am full of admiration for the servicemen attitude of "taking the Queens Shilling, knowing the risk" as exemplified by VW above, for me there is the duty of care/covenant principle to be upheld.

If we are going to send our young men and women into sh*tty places to fight other peoples wars, they should be equipped with the best equipment available. This has not been the case in years, if not, never.

I despise the pen-pushers in the MoD that are making such decisions. There are other examples, not just the Snatch Land Rovers. What about the 6 Red Caps who were murdered having less than a third of the minimum ammo load-out ? Stories of certain soldiers having to give up body armour to other formations only to get shot dead in a way that armour would have protected them ? Crap radios ? Boots falling apart ? Relying on the Yanks to provide air cover as our Harriers rot at Davis-Monthan and our carriers are cut up in Turkey ? Shutting military hospitals and putting servicemen on wards in normal hospitals where any old bigot or fanatic can abuse them ? Using technicalities to diddle servicemen and women out of invalidity settlements ?

This country has a choice to make. If we are a world player, we have to take the role and its responsibilities seriously. That includes to our servicemen and women. Help For Heroes shouldnt need to exist; the country has an obligation to fulfill.

IMO, of course.

Not enough thought going into some of the comments on here.

Obviously always being equipped with the best equipment available is both subjective and impossible. Technological advances are made all the time, and the bad guys won't wait until our troops are re-supplied with the latest gizmos. There should be a test of reasonableness, but I'd be amazed if that isn't already in place.

What I don't understand is why it has to come down to money (compensation). If somebody or some people screw up along the way, and the wrong equipment is in the wrong place at the wrong time, then yes there should be consequences. Demotion, firing (in a sacking sense not with a blindfold), loss of pension rights, etc. and affected personnel or their families should have the right to know, without names being named. But suing for extra compensation, over and above what others get? That's just wrong, and just another licence for greedy unscrupulous lawyers to get rich at our expense.

View this is not purely about snatch land rovers. If this case succeeds then there will be a wide range of implications for the military on operations . Indeed not only the military include the police who are sent out to deal with armed criminals . The HRA laws should not be part and parcel on military operations. There is always an inherent risk . Even the warrior / warthog type vehicles etc do afford protection

It is ridiculous . Worse that the police suing their bosses because they tripped on a pavement .

mate, the MoD should provide basic equipment that is up to the task. simple as that.

The MoD procurement process, for massive warships to everyday shoes personnel wear is and has been for years. AN UTTER JOKE

mate, the MoD should provide basic equipment that is up to the task. simple as that.

 

The MoD procurement process, for massive warships to everyday shoes personnel wear is and has been for years. AN UTTER JOKE

The septics call us "The Borrowers" for a reason!

We robbed them blind during Op Granby.

mate, the MoD should provide basic equipment that is up to the task. simple as that.

 

The MoD procurement process, for massive warships to everyday shoes personnel wear is and has been for years. AN UTTER JOKE

Probably true, like all Government procurement (not just UK), but introducing the compensation culture isn't the answer. It's one branch of the judiiary opening a very lucrative door for another. Jobs for the boys (and girls). Inevitable result of 20 years of very weak government scared to say boo to a goose for fear of losing votes.

View

Yes it was very sad the blue on blue incident. There have been far too many. several by the americans on our lads and lasses.

And as an ex servicemen I do feel the loss of every servicemen and woman who lays down their life.

I think there is one thing finding out the real facts that went on with the Challenger incident. and I agree somethings do get covered up. partly out of resect to those who died and partly out of respect to the relatives. Partly out of embarrasment.

But also due to the Official Secrets act. I will say no more on that !!!! otherwise I might end up in jail

My concern is that several people who have losts sons appear to have put in a form of class action under the HRA to sue the Govt/MOD . They are not all the same type of case re inappropriate equipment.

Hutch. You make some excellent points which I concur with.

Batman. Yep your dead right re some equipment . More rescently the issue of trainers. Recruits got given a pair of gucci all singing all dancing trainers while the rest of us made do with your bog standard Hi tec trainers. and when I first joined I pair of Black and I pair of white plimsolls., My how times have changed. Bring back the old hob nailboots they wore in world war 1 and 2

Probably true, like all Government procurement (not just UK), but introducing the compensation culture isn't the answer. It's one branch of the judiiary opening a very lucrative door for another. Jobs for the boys (and girls). Inevitable result of 20 years of very weak government scared to say boo to a goose for fear of losing votes.

its not compensation for falling over at work and hurting the leg. its people dying because of equipment that was never ever fit for purpose in the first place.

I could tell you so many stories. here is one for starters. My mate got a huge (non lethal) electric shock because the footwear he was given was crumbling due to the substandard glue around the soles degrading really quickly. The stores ANYWHERE did not have replacement foot ware. He was not allowed to buy his own, 'up to the job' boots from town (even stated that he would not claim the money for them) so he literally used black masking tape to wrap around his boots to cover the hole in them. He was working on an electrical cabinet and rack was not earthed properly and he got an almighty belt of electric.

he never died but was unfit for future employment in the services (and many employers out of the services). he is now on a HUGE medical pension. There was no need to sue the MoD. For the sake of a pair of protective boot as well.

Another bloke I know who is a Royal Marine Corporal. His troop walked over an IED in afghan. without going into detail, he lost a couple of fingers, the ability to produce kids (man hood still there, just no balls) the sight in one eye and his whole left side is like a patchwork doll due to the sheer amount of operations he has had. The Yank guy who was the next guy CLOSER to the blast literally walked away with a cuts on bruises in comparison.

Reason being. Their armour protection was miles better and more up to the job than his.

People in the forces are constantly told they are the best in the world, best equipped and best trained.

are they being lied to?

Batman (Jamie) you make good valid points but the development of equipment evolves just as quick as the enemy design counter weapons to overcome the new equipment that is provided.

Take OP Telic. measures and new equipment were put in place/issued to counter the weapons of the iraquis / Insurgents tatics.

The insurgents and at this pont iranians monitored this and designed new types of IED's So that while the first explosion was designed to stall the vehicle. a secondary and third device was included with different trajectory levels so design to his soldiers coming out of turrets of vehicles etc.

Point I am making that you may have the best equipment but it doesnt stop service personnel getting killed.

On a positive note there has been some major advances in the equipment etc that has been issued/ Developed.

For instance the advance in medical equipment allowing for those with severe trauma to survive their injuries.

Will those relatives who sons killed on Sir Galahad, HMS Sheffield etc in Falklands now use this law to sue the military as there wasnt enough air cover for them at the time?

As am I and simply put the Snatch should never have been deployed to Iraq.

The snatch was deployed in the conflict and stayed on as that is all they had. It is a great vehicle for moving small combat sections around onthe ground and launching surprise raids. When the enemy change their angle of attack (ieds) the vehicle came under close scrutiny. Until something else came along were they supposed to lay on their pits until something a bit safer turned up. When ever someone dies in the conflict there is always the chance to lay some blame at others feet. And it would appear that is what has happened.

Hutch has put the most valid post regarding the whole issue.

Ta

Some of the kit is that inadequate. It would be like a copper being stabbed through his 'stab vest' with a spoon.

but the forces very much have a 'can do' attitude and get on with it

The snatch was deployed in the conflict and stayed on as that is all they had. It is a great vehicle for moving small combat sections around onthe ground and launching surprise raids. When the enemy change their angle of attack (ieds) the vehicle came under close scrutiny. Until something else came along were they supposed to lay on their pits until something a bit safer turned up. When ever someone dies in the conflict there is always the chance to lay some blame at others feet. And it would appear that is what has happened.

 

Hutch has put the most valid post regarding the whole issue.

 

Ta

I utterly disagree. It was never up to the job that it was designed to do in NI but powers to be were so fu.cking lax that it took deaths and serious injury before they decided that perhaps the chaps at the pointy end knew best.

If the equipment was fit for purpose then surely the argument wouldn't arise. But as Batman says the nature of the professionals that defend us is a 'can do' attitude to get the job done, for which they my utmost respect for. But governments do play on this mentality. So maybe this is a kick up the arse politician's need? But as Hutch says another chance to line lawyer's pockets.

one thing that is generally a rule to remember.

The kit supplied is generally done so by the lowest possible bidder these days

I believe there are a lot of questions that need to be answered re iraq . After all the initial trust was to deal with WMD and troops were prepared for that . However there was never a plan b , c or d in place to deal with the rise in insurgency. Maybe the snatch land rovers were okay after the first few months of sad dams overthrow . But as history shows things became very ugly and there was a requirement for different assets . There were not specialist vehicles readily available until some years later . Ides have become more sophisticated . Despite various scanning devices they still remain undetected. The courts have a hard judgement to make . Hindsight is a wonderful thing but at the time the commander on the ground has to use the assets they have at the time .