Hodge Jones & Allen

Press Release: Wednesday 11th May 2011

 

MoD 3-day hearing at High Court finished today

 

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has asked a High Court hearing to block claims for compensation made by the families of three soldiers who died in Iraq.

Private Lee Ellis, Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath, and Private Phillip Hewett were all killed in separate incidents during the conflict whilst travelling in controversial Snatch Land Rovers. 

Relatives - backed by HJA solicitor Jocelyn Cockburn - insist that the MoD failed to provide properly-armoured vehicles that could have saved lives and are suing the organisation for compensation.

However, the MoD stated this week that the claims should be blocked on the basis of combat immunity and because there is no duty under the Human Rights Act to protect the lives of soldiers in combat.   Its representatives have also argued that "complex" decisions about the deployment of equipment should be made by politicians and army personnel, not judges.

Ms Cockburn commented: "It is outrageous that the MoD seeks to assert that there is no duty on it to protect its soldiers.  Everybody in the UK has the right to life.  This right is provided to us all because we are human and does not discriminate against anyone – even people that actually pose a threat to our society.  So why is it acceptable to deny soldiers their fundamental human rights? 

 

“The Snatch families are arguing that the decision to provide poorly equipped vehicles was not one made in the heat of battle.  Over a number of years, including before the Iraq War, the need for better armoured vehicles was evident – in fact there was enormous public outcry about the use of Snatch (which were described as “mobile coffins” by some soldiers) and yet the MoD did nothing until 2006 which was far too late.  This is not a case therefore that is covered by combat immunity, which is designed to prevent claims arising out of decisions made in the fog of war."

 

“As to the complexity issue and the fact that the Courts should not interfere with matters of policy, there is nothing extraordinary about the Courts being asked to adjudicate in difficult cases.  The MoD is trying to prevent these claims being aired.  Without a legal obligation to protect soldiers one must be concerned that this will simply not be a priority for politicians.  There is a wealth of evidence to show that standards are raised by the existence of such duties.  One is left to consider whether soldiers would have been sent out in Snatch land rovers had the MoD felt that it was under a duty to protect its soldiers”.

 

She added that the MoD has continued to deny that Snatch Land Rovers were unsafe and that this has caused the Snatch families considerable upset.

The Judge has reserved Judgment and this is expected within the next month or two.