Soldiers' families get green light to sue MoD over Iraq deaths

BBC News, 19 October 2012

Related Stories 

• Relatives make Iraq damages bid
• Iraq compensation bid is blocked
• Snatch Land Rover replacement announced

The soldiers were among 179 service
 personnel who died after the invasion
of Iraq in 2003

The families of four UK 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 three men killed when their lightly armoured Snatch Land Rovers were attacked.

The Court of Appeal said the families could pursue damages claims against the government.

The MoD argued decisions about battlefield equipment were for politicians and commanders, not courts.

But the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, described the MoD's arguments to strike out the claims as "fatally flawed".

Lawyers for the families say the cases are ultimately concerned with the legal obligations the military owes to personnel during operations.

'Manifestly unsuitable'

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 Challenger 2 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.

'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 second case has been brought by lawyers acting for the families of three soldiers killed by roadside bombs in separate incidents.

Pte Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth in Staffordshire, died in July 2005 after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up.

Similar explosions killed Pte Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, in February 2006, and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, east London, in August 2007.

Susan Smith - Pte Hewett's mother - 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.

In June 2011 the High Court ruled that claims for negligence could be pursued over the friendly fire incident, as well as by relatives of Pte Ellis.

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.

The families involved in the Human Rights Act decision challenged the ruling.

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."

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.

"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."