This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19992082

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Soldiers' families get green light to sue MoD over Iraq deaths Soldiers' families get green light to sue MoD over Iraq deaths
(35 minutes later)
The families of two soldiers killed in Iraq have been told they can sue the Ministry of Defence for negligence.The families of two soldiers killed in Iraq have been told they can sue the Ministry of Defence for negligence.
The cases concern a soldier who died in a "friendly fire" incident and one killed when his lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover was attacked.The cases concern a soldier who died in a "friendly fire" incident and one killed when his lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover was attacked.
But the Appeal Court ruled the latter - and two other families - could not pursue claims on human rights grounds.But the Appeal Court ruled the latter - and two other families - could not pursue claims on human rights grounds.
The MoD argued decisions about battlefield equipment were for politicians and commanders, not courts.The MoD argued decisions about battlefield equipment were for politicians and commanders, not courts.
Susan Smith, whose son Pte Phillip Hewitt was killed in a Snatch Land Rover, was angry about not being able to pursue a claim under the Human Rights Act: "The soldiers have a right to life - which is something that the MoD seem to say that if they're on exercise or anything like that - abroad - they're not covered by that. In June 2011 the High Court ruled claims for negligence could be made over the friendly fire incident, as well as by relatives of Pte Lee Ellis, who died after a roadside bomb struck his Snatch Land Rover.
"But they are covered if they're in the barracks. Sending someone out in a vehicle that isn't up to scratch - because they know that nothing's going to happen about it - then they're going to continue to do it. But it threw out a separate application by the families of Pte Ellis and two other soldiers killed in similar incidents that they were entitled to seek damages under the Human Rights Act.
"Why is it that the UK is always ramming down your throat about everybody else's human rights but their own soldiers have got none?" The MoD launched an appeal against the right of the families to claim damages while the relatives involved in the Human Rights Act case challenged that ruling.
They were given leave to appeal the Human Rights Act point to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal described the MoD's arguments to strike out the claims as "fatally flawed".
An MoD spokesperson said: "Our thoughts and concerns remain with those that were injured and the families of those that sadly lost their lives. It decided the negligence claims of Mr Ellis's daughter and his sister, as well as that of the survivors and relatives of the friendly fire victim, are arguable and can proceed to court.
"We are considering the judgement by the Court of Appeal and as this is likely to be subject to further legal action it would be inappropriate for us to comment further." Its rejected the human rights claims but gave the families leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, described the MoD's arguments to strike out the claims as "fatally flawed". In his ruling Lord Neuberger said: "The duty of care owed by the Ministry of Defence, as employer, to the members of the armed forces, as employees, does exist and has been recognised, without demur, by the courts. It includes a duty to provide safe systems of work and safe equipment."
Lawyers for the families say the cases are ultimately concerned with the legal obligations the military owes to personnel during operations. The Court of Appeal judgement focused on two areas - whether the MoD owes a duty of care to soldiers who are killed or injured on the battlefield and whether soldiers serving on missions abroad fall within Human Rights Act legislation.
'Manifestly unsuitable' 'Milestone decision'
Lawyers for the families said the cases are ultimately concerned with the legal obligations the military owes to personnel during operations.
The UK lost 179 servicemen and women following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - of which 136 were killed in action.The UK lost 179 servicemen and women following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - of which 136 were killed in action.
The Court of Appeal judgement focused on two areas - whether the MoD owes a duty of care to soldiers who are killed or injured on the battlefield and whether soldiers serving abroad fall within Human Rights Act legislation.
One case concerns two former soldiers and the widow of a serviceman involved in a friendly fire incident in 2003.
Cpl Stephen Allbutt, 35, of Sneyd Green in Stoke-on-Trent, died in March 2003, after a Challenger 2 tank was hit by another British tank. Soldiers Dan Twiddy, of Stamford in Lincolnshire, and Andy Julien, of Bolton were badly wounded in the incident.Cpl Stephen Allbutt, 35, of Sneyd Green in Stoke-on-Trent, died in March 2003, after a Challenger 2 tank was hit by another British tank. Soldiers Dan Twiddy, of Stamford in Lincolnshire, and Andy Julien, of Bolton were badly wounded in the incident.
Cpl Allbutt's widow Debi and the two survivors argue the tank was not equipped with available technology to protect them from the risk of friendly fire and say they had not been provided with adequate vehicle recognition training.Cpl Allbutt's widow Debi and the two survivors argue the tank was not equipped with available technology to protect them from the risk of friendly fire and say they had not been provided with adequate vehicle recognition training.
'Milestone decision'
Mrs Allbutt's MP, Joan Walley, said: "I am delighted we have reached this milestone decision.Mrs Allbutt's MP, Joan Walley, said: "I am delighted we have reached this milestone decision.
"The MoD needs to urgently review whether its current procurement policy to equip our armed forces is fit for purpose.""The MoD needs to urgently review whether its current procurement policy to equip our armed forces is fit for purpose."
The second case has been brought by lawyers acting for the families of three soldiers killed by roadside bombs in separate incidents. Pte Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, died after his Snatch Land Rover was attacked in February 2006.
Pte Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, died in February 2006, after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up.
Similar explosions killed Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth in Staffordshire, in July 2005, and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, east London, in August 2007.Similar explosions killed Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth in Staffordshire, in July 2005, and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, east London, in August 2007.
Mrs Smith; Colin Redpath - L/Cpl Redpath's father; and Karla and Courtney Ellis - Pte Ellis's sister and daughter; say the men had carried out high risk patrols in "poorly armoured" vehicles that were "manifestly unsuitable for the job". The MoD announced a replacement for the Snatch Land Rover in 2009. Mrs Smith; Colin Redpath - L/Cpl Redpath's father; and Karla and Courtney Ellis - Pte Ellis's sister and daughter; said the men had carried out high risk patrols in "poorly armoured" vehicles that were "manifestly unsuitable for the job". The MoD announced a replacement for the Snatch Land Rover in 2009.
In June 2011 the High Court ruled claims for negligence could be pursued over the friendly fire incident, as well as by relatives of Pte Ellis. Susan Smith, whose son Pte Phillip Hewitt was killed in a Snatch Land Rover, was angry about not being able to pursue a claim under the Human Rights Act and drew parallels with soldiers killed or injured in their barracks due to accidents.
But it threw out a separate application by the families of the Snatch Land Rover victims that they were entitled to seek damages under the Human Rights Act. She said: "Why is it that the UK is always ramming down your throat about everybody else's human rights but their own soldiers have got none?"
The families involved in the Human Rights Act decision challenged the ruling. Her solicitor Jocelyn Cockburn said: "The battle will go forward on human rights. I think it is very important to establish a principle that soldiers going into battle have human rights..."
In his ruling Lord Neuberger said: "The duty of care owed by the Ministry of Defence, as employer, to the members of the armed forces, as employees, does exist and has been recognised, without demur, by the courts. It includes a duty to provide safe systems of work and safe equipment." Lawyer Shubhaa Srinivasan, representing the victims of the friendly fire incident, said: "The MoD can no longer hide behind arguments relating to complexities in procuring equipment and allocation of scarce resources to evade a duty of care to adequately equip its servicemen and women who are being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country."
Shubhaa Srinivasan, a lawyer representing Mrs Allbutt, said: "As a prudent employer the MoD can have no excuses now and must get on with the business of ensuring that troops are properly equipped, if not, it can be vulnerable to negligence claims. An MoD spokesperson said: "We are considering the judgement by the Court of Appeal and as this is likely to be subject to further legal action it would be inappropriate for us to comment further."
"The court ruling also makes it clear the MoD can no longer hide behind arguments relating to complexities in procuring equipment and allocation of scarce resources to evade a duty of care to adequately equip its servicemen and women who are being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country."