Soldiers can sue over battle wounds

London: Sending soldiers into battle with inadequate equipment could be a breach of their human rights, the High Court ruled on Friday.

In a ground-breaking judgment, the court said service personnel should have the same rights "wherever they may be" - even in a war zone.

It opens the way for soldiers or their families to sue if they are injured due to faulty or inadequate equipment.

A major defeat for Defence Secretary Des Browne, who argued that applying human rights in combat areas was "impossible", it could mean operations in Iraq and Afghanistan become entangled with legal disputes.

Browne suffered another defeat when the judge rejected his attempt to stop coroners from using phrases such as "serious failure" that implied criticism of the Ministry of Defence. The court declared that families were entitled to legal aid and access to military documents put before inquest hearings.

It was the third serious defeat for the Government this week at the hands of the courts. Al Qaida supporter Abu Qatada won his fight against deportation and the High Court ruled that the Serious Fraud Office "unlawfully" dropped the Saudi bribes inquiry.

Friday's ruling came in a test case brought against the Ministry of Defence over the death of Private Jason Smith, who died in Iraq of heatstroke in 2003.

Justice Andrew Collins accepted that in battle conditions it would be "impossible" to impose a duty of care over failure to maintain a safe system. But he ruled that soldiers or their families could in certain circumstances bring a legal action under Article 2 of "Right to Life" under the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights.

Human rights

He said: "The soldier does not lose all protection simply because he is in hostile territory carrying out dangerous operations. Thus, for example, to send a soldier out on patrol, or into battle with defective equipment could constitute a breach of Article 2."

He argued that the blundering generals who ordered the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War could not be accused of breaching human rights laws.

But the failure of the Army at the time to provide "any adequate medical attention in the Crimean War" would be a breach.

Liberal Democrats spokesman Nick Harvey called it a "shattering ruling for Des Browne" for depriving soldiers of lifesaving gear. "In many cases lives are being lost over penny-pinching," he said.

The judgment was welcomed by families of soldiers killed in conflicts and training. Diane Dernie, whose son Ben Parkinson lost both his legs and suffered brain injury in a landmine explosion in Afghanistan last year, said the court's decision was "absolute common sense".

"How can you expect these soldiers to go out and risk everything and give their all and the government to not have any responsibility to ensure their equipment functions correctly and provide safety equipment?" she said. "This shouldn't have even been up for discussion."

- Evening Standard