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-22967853

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

Version 1 Version 2
Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue
(about 1 hour later)
The families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government under the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has ruled. Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government, 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. Legal action was brought by the relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers and of another killed while in a Challenger tank.
The court rejected the government's argument that the battlefield was beyond the reach of the legislation. The relatives want to make damages claims under human rights legislation and to sue for negligence.
Judges also ruled the Ministry of Defence owes soldiers a duty of care under the law of negligence. The judges ruled they can do both and the claims can now proceed to trial.
They backed a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal that the relatives of two soldiers killed in Iraq could bring claims for damages against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for negligence in failing to provide sufficient protection while on active service. The families of the soldiers who died in Snatch Land Rovers while on duty in Iraq want to make claims for damages under the Human Rights Act.
During Wednesday's hearing, the Supreme Court justices also said the soldiers killed in Iraq in Snatch Land Rovers were within the UK's jurisdiction at the time of their deaths and so were subject to human rights legislation. The soldiers were Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, who was killed in July 2005, Pte Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, killed in February 2006, and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, east London, killed in August 2007.
They were Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, who was killed in July 2005, Pte Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, killed in February 2006, and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, east London, killed in August 2007. 'Combat immunity'
Sue Smith, mother of Pte Phillip Hewett, said the judgement was "absolutely brilliant". The Ministry of Defence had argued the claims should be struck out because the soldiers were not covered by the legislation once they had left their base.
But the Supreme Court rejected this, concluding the soldiers were within the UK's jurisdiction at the time of their deaths and so were subject to human rights legislation.
The family of Cpl Stephen Allbutt, 35, of Sneyd Green, Stoke-on-Trent - who was killed in an incident in a tank in Iraq in March 2003 - as well as Lance Cpl Daniel Twiddy and Tpr Andrew Julien, who were both injured in the same incident, bought a second case to the court.
They argued that the MoD owed a duty of care under the law of negligence. They said the MoD had failed to properly equip the tanks and to give soldiers adequate training.
The MoD had argued that there was "combat immunity" for troops in action and it was not "fair, just or reasonable" to impose a duty of care on the MoD when soldiers were on the battlefield.
During Wednesday's hearing, the Supreme Court justices ruled that immunity did not apply in this case, because the decision about the use of the tanks was "sufficiently far removed from the pressures and risks of active operations against the enemy".
Shubhaa Srinivasan, from law firm Leigh Day, who represents all the Challenger claimants, said: "We are extremely pleased with the decision.
"The highest court in the land has now ruled the MoD, as employer, must accept that it owes a duty of care to properly equip service personnel who go to war.
"We have constantly argued that the MoD's position is morally and legally indefensible."
'Carte blanche'
Susan Smith, mother of Pte Phillip Hewett, said the judgement was "absolutely brilliant".
"It's really important because now they (the soldiers) can't just be out there with no equipment," she said. "As an employer they (the MoD) have got to make sure they're safe at work, which should have be happening from day one."It's really important because now they (the soldiers) can't just be out there with no equipment," she said. "As an employer they (the MoD) have got to make sure they're safe at work, which should have be happening from day one.
"Phillip's dead. Nothing is going to bring him back, but this might help save lives in the future.""Phillip's dead. Nothing is going to bring him back, but this might help save lives in the future."
Lawyer Jocelyn Cockburn, who is acting for some of the families, said the MoD "can't be given a carte blanche to fail to equip our troops". Lawyer Jocelyn Cockburn, who is acting for the Snatch Land Rover families, said the MoD "can't be given a carte blanche to fail to equip our troops".
She said: "I think what they have established is what seems to many families is common sense - that soldiers have human rights, and they do remain within the jurisdiction of the UK, and they don't lose those because they are on the battlefield."
The families' claims will now be able to proceed to trial to determine if the MoD owes damages.The families' claims will now be able to proceed to trial to determine if the MoD owes damages.
BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the judgement could set out the framework of legal obligations owed by the MoD to its servicemen and women the world over.BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the judgement could set out the framework of legal obligations owed by the MoD to its servicemen and women the world over.