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 3 Version 4
Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue
(35 minutes later)
Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government, the Supreme Court has ruled.Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Legal action was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers and another killed while in a Challenger tank.Legal action was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers and another killed while in a Challenger tank.
The judges ruled the families can make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence. The judges ruled the families could make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence.
The defence secretary said the ruling could make it "more difficult for troops to carry out operations".The defence secretary said the ruling could make it "more difficult for troops to carry out operations".
At least 37 UK soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan while travelling in the lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover; its vulnerability has led some soldiers to call it the "mobile coffin".
The families of the three soldiers who died in the vehicles while on duty in Iraq want to make claims for damages under the Human Rights Act.
'Combat immunity''Combat immunity'
At least 37 UK soldiers have died in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan while travelling in the lightly armoured Snatch Land Rover; its vulnerability has led some soldiers to call it the "mobile coffin".
The families of the three soldiers who died in the vehicles while on duty in Iraq want to make claims for damages under the Human Rights Act.
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.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.
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.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.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.
BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Colman described the ruling as a "major shift", which could now lead to more claims being made against the MoD.BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Colman described the ruling as a "major shift", which could now lead to more claims being made against the MoD.
But he added that the court had been careful to say that certain things will still not be challengeable under human rights law, such as high-level policy decisions at the MoD or decisions made on the battlefield in the heat of battle.But he added that the court had been careful to say that certain things will still not be challengeable under human rights law, such as high-level policy decisions at the MoD or decisions made on the battlefield in the heat of battle.
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 - and of Lance Cpl Daniel Twiddy and Tpr Andrew Julien, who were both injured in the same incident, brought a second case to the court. The families 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 - and of Lance Cpl Daniel Twiddy and Tpr Andrew Julien, who were both injured in the same incident, brought 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.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.
'National security''National security'
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.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".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".
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said his thoughts were with the injured soldiers and the families of those who had lost their lives, but he added: "I am very concerned at the wider implications of this judgment, which could ultimately make it more difficult for our troops to carry out operations, and potentially throws open a wide range of military decisions to the uncertainty of litigation.Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said his thoughts were with the injured soldiers and the families of those who had lost their lives, but he added: "I am very concerned at the wider implications of this judgment, which could ultimately make it more difficult for our troops to carry out operations, and potentially throws open a wide range of military decisions to the uncertainty of litigation.
"We will continue to make this point in future legal proceedings as it can't be right that troops on operations have to put the European Convention on Human Rights ahead of what is operationally vital to protect our national security.""We will continue to make this point in future legal proceedings as it can't be right that troops on operations have to put the European Convention on Human Rights ahead of what is operationally vital to protect our national security."
Shubhaa Srinivasan, from law firm Leigh Day, who represents all the Challenger claimants, said: "We are extremely pleased with the decision.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.""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."
Debi Allbutt, the widow of Cpl Stephen Allbutt, told the BBC she was pleased with the outcome, but that the families' fight would continue.Debi Allbutt, the widow of Cpl Stephen Allbutt, told the BBC she was pleased with the outcome, but that the families' fight would continue.
"This is our chance to make history," she said. "We want combat immunity thrown out of the rulebook, so instead of soldiers having to sue the Ministry of Defence, the equipment and the training will be in place to stop things like this happening again.""This is our chance to make history," she said. "We want combat immunity thrown out of the rulebook, so instead of soldiers having to sue the Ministry of Defence, the equipment and the training will be in place to stop things like this happening again."
'Carte blanche''Carte blanche'
Susan Smith, mother of Pte Phillip Hewett, described the judgement as "absolutely brilliant".Susan Smith, mother of Pte Phillip Hewett, described the judgement as "absolutely brilliant".
"They can no longer treat soldiers as sub-human with no rights," she said."They can no longer treat soldiers as sub-human with no rights," she said.
"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 the Snatch Land Rover 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."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.