Get In Touch
Civil Liberties & Human Rights

Military Judicial Reviews

Susie-Labinjoh-2
Susie Labinjoh
Partner
Cormac McDonough
Cormac McDonough
Partner
Jocelyn Cockburn
Jocelyn Cockburn
Partner
Maria O'Connell
Maria O’Connell
Partner
Nancy Collins
Nancy Collins
Partner
Sasha Barton
Sasha Barton
Partner
Alisha McSporran
Paralegal
Aniqa Khan
Paralegal
Aston Luff
Aston Luff
Solicitor
Brid Doherty
Brid Doherty
Solicitor
Charlotte Sykes
Charlotte Sykes
Solicitor
Darcey Hayes
Paralegal
Eliza Bell
Trainee
Guy Mitchell
Guy Mitchell
Solicitor
Lottie Baldwin
Lottie Baldwin
Solicitor
Megan Finnis
Megan Finnis
Solicitor
Rebecca Shotton
Rebecca Shotton
Trainee
Ruth Waters-Falk
Ruth Waters-Falk
Solicitor
Sabrina Pinto_Website
Sabrina Pinto
Paralegal
Sarah Flanagan
Sarah Flanagan
Associate
Sebastian Del Monte
Sebastian Del Monte
Solicitor
Shakti Bhagwansingh
Shakti Bhagwansingh
Solicitor
Sion Morgan
Sion Morgan
Solicitor
Siri Beck-Friis
Siri Beck-Friis
Paralegal
Will Heath
Will Heath
Paralegal

Judicial review is a court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision made by a public body. In the case of military personnel, this could be challenging a decision made by the Ministry of Defence, disputing a Coroner’s verdict or challenging the actions of other organisations within the Armed Forces.

Hodge Jones & Allen has a long-standing and successful record of challenging decisions taken by public bodies, which affect military personnel. We passionately believe that military authorities should be held to account when they fail our servicemen and women in the forces.

Our specialist expertise means we can persuade the authorities to reconsider their decisions or change course, before cases reach court. However, we have fought and won judicial reviews which have been vigorously defended by the Ministry of Defence and other bodies.

HJA Chambers firm logo 2024 PNG

Legal 500 uk-top-tier-firm-202

We explore every legal avenue to overturn unfair decisions. Recognised as a leading firm for bringing judicial reviews on behalf of military personnel. Our solicitors will help you challenge decisions, procedures or failure to act appropriately, in these instances:

  • Coroner inquest verdicts
  • Refusal by the armed forces to disclose information to an inquest
  • Breaches of human rights law
  • Refusal to make payment for injuries
  • Failure to investigate complaints, for example in relation to allegations of bullying, harassment, assault and discrimination
  • Refusal to discharge someone who has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  • Challenging decisions on compensation
  • Failures to prosecute or investigate crimes

If there’s a decision you want to challenge, it’s important to act quickly. There’s strict time limits for launching a judicial review, usually within three months, although in some cases the review must be brought sooner. Contact us as soon as possible so we can help.

Meet Jocelyn Cockburn

Call our specialist Military Claims solicitors today on
0808 271 9413
or request a call back.

HJA Chambers firm logo 2024 PNG Legal 500 uk-top-tier-firm-202

 

 

 

“The whole legal team are professional and empathetic with excellent communication.” “They are excellent in all regards, and are extremely kind, patient and helpful.” “The quality of their lawyers, the work they generate and the way they handle cases are excellent.” – Chambers UK, 2023

“Hodge Jones & Allen’s expertise and passion in this field are truly outstanding. Their comprehensive approach, combined with their deep understanding of the legal complexities involved, allows them to deliver impactful representation” – Legal 500, 2024

Back to top

Featured cases

Our experience of military cases ranges from high profile judicial reviews to very many less well known, but no less complex or important cases. Below are two examples of how we’ve helped:

Snatch Land Rovers

We won the right to a judicial review of the Government’s refusal to hold a Public Inquiry into the use of Snatch Land Rover vehicles in Iraq. The judicial review was brought on behalf of families who lost loved ones killed in Iraq in these inadequately armoured vehicles.

The families’ claim was troops shouldn’t have been using Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq, as they’re so poorly equipped to protect against threats, such as roadside bombs.

The Ministry of Defence subsequently recommended the families should request the Iraq Inquiry to investigate the use of Snatch Land Rovers. Following concerns raised at the Iraq Inquiry, the Government announced it would spend £100 million replacing the Snatch Land Rover with an improved armoured patrol vehicle.

Private Jason Smith

Following a lack of disclosure by the Ministry of Defence, we brought a judicial review to challenge the verdict of an inquest into the death of Private Jason Smith, who suffered a fatal heatstroke while serving in Iraq in 2003.

This resulted in the Supreme Court quashing the verdict and led to a second inquest which found that the risk of death could have been reduced by adherence to policy on heat illness, in terms of climatic monitoring, hydration and medical treatment, and by the availability of air-conditioned accommodation and vehicles.

We won substantial damages and an apology for Jason’s mother from the Ministry of Defence.

Back to top

Featured Cases

Judicial Review

Hodge Jones & Allen represented four relatives of servicemen who were killed when travelling in Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq, described as ‘mobile coffins’ by British soldiers, since 2007. The case finally reached its conclusion with a financial settlement in December 2016 and the receipt of a negotiated apology in May 2017. The apology is significant as the MOD had not acknowledged failings in relation to Snatch (and did not admit liability) but in the apology they recognised that steps should have been taken sooner to replace Snatch Land Rover vehicles from theatre which could have saved lives.

Judicial Review

Following a lack of disclosure by the Ministry of Defence, we brought a judicial review to challenge the verdict of an inquest into the death of Private Jason Smith, who suffered a fatal heatstroke while serving in Iraq in 2003. This resulted in the Supreme Court quashing the verdict and led to a second inquest which found that the risk of death could have been reduced by adherence to policy on heat illness, in terms of climatic monitoring, hydration and medical treatment, and by the availability of air-conditioned accommodation and vehicles. We won substantial damages and an apology for Jason’s mother from the Ministry of Defence.

Type of Case
Private Jason Smith
Outcome
Successful
View all
Further Reading
View all

"They are remarkably consistent, client-focused and detail-oriented." Chambers UK, 2021

    document.getElementById( "ak_js_4" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );