The ruling by the Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 19) that soldiers have a right to life even in war zones will potentially have a huge impact on current and future military operations.
The judges ruled that the relatives of three soldiers killed by roadside bombs while in poorly armoured Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq can pursue damages under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act.
They added that the doctrine of combat immunity, which prevents soldiers from claiming compensation for injuries received in combat except under official schemes, should be interpreted “narrowly” and should not be extended to cover “the planning of and preparation for active operations against the enemy”.
The ruling could open the floodgates to scores of claims over deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq and result in multi-million pound compensation bills for the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Following the judgement, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond warned that it could hamper British military action and said he is very concerned at its wider implications, which could ultimately make it more difficult for British troops to carry out operations and potentially throws open a wide range of military decisions to the uncertainty of litigation.
Mr Hammond added that he doesn’t see how it can be right that troops on operations have to put the European Convention of Human Rights ahead of what is operationally vital to protect the country’s national security.
However, the ruling has been hailed as a victory by campaigners and comes as a relief for the families of servicemen killed in Iraq, who are likely to be able to claim payouts of around £250,000 each. Many have spent years trying to find out what happened to their relatives and are challenging the army over the standard of kit issued. It is also likely to stimulate further legal actions involving allegedly inadequate or missing military equipment