Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue

[Guest]

Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government, the Supreme Court has ruled. Legal action was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers and another killed while in a Challenger tank.

The judges ruled the families could make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence.

The defence secretary has said the ruling could make it "more difficult for troops to carry out operations".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853

So it looks as though the families of some of our heroes are planning to sue HMG using the oft-reviled (on here) European Convention on Human Rights.

Watch this space :erm:

[Beef Oven]

Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can pursue damages against the government, the Supreme Court has ruled. Legal action was brought by relatives of three men killed by roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers and another killed while in a Challenger tank.

The judges ruled the families could make damages claims under human rights legislation and sue for negligence.

The defence secretary has said the ruling could make it "more difficult for troops to carry out operations".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22967853

So it looks as though the families of some of our heroes are planning to sue HMG using the oft-reviled (on here) European Convention on Human Rights.

Watch this space :erm:

Totally agree amateur51 :ok:

Our military ('heroes' to you - I respect your emotions on this matter) should not need to use the perfidious ECHR when it's so easy to make legislation in Westminster that gives a duty of care to the state for its citizens. :erm:

[Barbirollians]

Only a complete idiot or an ignoramus could describe the ECHR as perfidious .

Containing such shocking ideas as - the right to life, the right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, the right to liberty , the right to a fair trial , the right to repsect for your family , private life and home, the right to freedom of religion and conscience, the right to freedom of expression etc etc

[french frank]

Only a complete idiot or an ignoramus could describe the ECHR as perfidious .

Containing such shocking ideas as - the right to life, the right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, the right to liberty , the right to a fair trial , the right to repsect for your family , private life and home, the right to freedom of religion and conscience, the right to freedom of expression etc etc

And whether we like it or not, it includes the right to a fair trial, even if you're Abu Qatada.

[Beef Oven]

Only a complete idiot or an ignoramus could describe the ECHR as perfidious .

Containing such shocking ideas as - the right to life, the right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, the right to liberty , the right to a fair trial , the right to repsect for your family , private life and home, the right to freedom of religion and conscience, the right to freedom of expression etc etc

Right to life, right not to be tortured, right to a fair trial etc, are all available within the UK, without the need for the ECHR - why the Aunt Sally argument?. We had all of this before the ECHR.

Try to argue your point moderately and politely.

And please avoid hysterical personal abuse. It is outside of the house rules, and you can expect to be picked up by the moderator for it.

[Beef Oven]

And whether we like it or not, it includes the right to a fair trial, even if you're Abu Qatada.

Absolutely. Abu Qatada is an excellent example. If he goes, anyone can be sent anywhere. He should be allowed to remain here, in my opinion.

But we don't need the ECHR for this. We can pass these laws in Westminster, and we should, if we need to. But it seems that he is able to quite rightly avoid extradition within the UK legal process. Thumbs up for sovereign democracy.

[Stephen Smith]

A relative has just completed 20+ years, non-commissioned, in the army. My impression is that the Army is not well served by the equipment (e.g Bowman navigation / communication system ( = "better with a map and a nokia" ) it is given -and if sheer negligence was actionable it would raise the stakes and make the MoD sort out its procurement process. To give blanket immunity does not promote and environment where risks are identified and reduced - 90% of time on active service is not engaged with the enemy, but in non-combat activity, there's no reason why negligence should not be subject to scrutiny.

The poiliticians, anti the convention, are of course going to town on it, but I would like to read the judgement - I'm sure it is much more reasoned, and recognising of the difficulties, than the spin being put on it. I'm not sure this means those relatives will succeed - only that they have the right to bring the matter to the Court/

The government and the armed forces have a difficulty here - we are leaving Afghanistan no better than we found it, in the hands of disreputable leaders, and the grievous sacrifice of our servicemen's lives have undermined any support for foreign policy adventures by any PM, backed by our forces (surely?)

[french frank]

Right to life, right not to be tortured, right to a fair trial etc, are all available within the UK, without the need for the ECHR - why the Aunt Sally argument?. We had all of this before the ECHR.

He is a Jordanian national facing trial for crimes committed in Jordan. Why should he be tried in the UK?

[Beef Oven]

He is a Jordanian national facing trial for crimes committed in Jordan. Why should he be tried in the UK?

I don't think he should be tried in the UK. Do you? Is that what you think?

I don't think he should be delivered to Jordan, where he may not get a fair trial.

We in the UK, should uphold the right of free trials in many ways, including not extraditing people to countries that have illiberal processes (including the use of torture) in their approach to 'justice'.

Read my post #6 carefully and, with respect, don't be influenced by other people referring to me as a complete idiot or ignoramus. :-)

[Pabmusic]

Right to life, right not to be tortured, right to a fair trial etc, are all available within the UK, without the need for the ECHR - why the Aunt Sally argument?. We had all of this before the ECHR...

No. We said we complied, that's all. We'd been saying it since 1950, which is why we didn't adopt the ECHR into our law from the beginning (like many countries did). The trouble was that what we considered we had in place didn't always match up with what we actually did. Increasingly, when UK cases got to the ECHR we often lost because we were not complying fully with the ECHR - something we usually acknowledged by changing our law eventually.

In case you don't remember, here's a list of all cases from the UK since 1976: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...48175248,d.aGc By clicking on it you download a .pdf file.

Every successful case - or part of a case - represents a clear ruling that UK law didn't match up to the Convention, despite our insisting it did. The most serious is McCann & Ors (1995) - the case that followed the 'death on the rock' incident in Gibraltar in 1988. It was the very first case brought against any country under the most important provision of the ECHR, the Right to Life. There's a link to the full judgement.

[Beef Oven]

No. We said we complied, that's all. We'd been saying it since 1950, which is why we didn't adopt the ECHR into our law from the beginning (like many countries did). The trouble was that what we considered we had in place didn't always match up with what we actually did. Increasingly, when UK cases got to the ECHR we often lost because we were not complying fully with the ECHR - something we usually acknowledged by changing our law eventually.

In case you don't remember, here's a list of all cases from the UK since 1976: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...48175248,d.aGc

The most serious is McCann & Ors (1995) - the case that followed the 'death on the rock' incident in Gibraltar. It was the very first case brought against and country under the most important provision of the ECHR, the Right to Life. There's a link to the full judgement.

NO! we don't need the ECHR for this is the point, NOT what the UK's record has been.

Our elected representatives in Westminster can make proper provision.

[Richard Barrett]

Our elected representatives in Westminster can make proper provision.

So how long do you think we'll have to wait before they do?

[Pabmusic]

NO! we don't need the ECHR for this is the point, NOT what the UK's record has been.

Our elected representatives in Westminster can make proper provision.

How short-sighted. We have no clear constitution (at least not with a tried and tested system of recourse to courts to enforce our rights against an over-enthusiastic Executive). The ECHR is the only recourse we have to law that is above the Executive. And you want to abandon that and replace it with something statutory that can be amended or overturned every time the government dislikes a decision? Really? And to cap it all, you expect that "our elected representatives in Westminster can make proper provision". Well, they certainly have a proven track record, don't they?

[french frank]

So how long do you think we'll have to wait before they do?

It seems that they are making 'proper provision' in this specific case, by ratifying the necessary agreement with Jordan, following the passing of new laws in Jordan this week.

"Last month Qatada’s lawyers told a Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac), that he would leave Britain voluntarily when the new law came into force."

It was not the UK government that was concerned that Abu Qatada should get a fair trial, was it? They would have shunted him off to Jordan to get rid of him. And even if the ECHR articles were adopted en bloc by the UK (rather than being recognised) we would still need the ECHR as a watchdog - for all countries.

And yes, I do think that if he faces trial in Jordan for offences committed in Jordan he should, in principle, be extradited to Jordan; certainly there appears to be no impediment that bothers Abu Qatada himself.

[Beef Oven]

How short-sighted. We have no clear constitution (at least not with a tried and tested system of recourse to courts to enforce our rights against an over-enthusiastic Executive). The ECHR is the only recourse we have to law that is above the Executive. And you want to abandon that and replace it with something statutory that can be amended or overturned every time the government dislikes a decision? Really? And to cap it all, you expect that "our elected representatives in Westminster can make proper provision". Well, they certainly have a proven track record, don't they?

You want to abandon parliamentary democracy? How short-sighted. You are in favour of a world or European government overseeing our parliament?

I say this because it is the corollary of what you are saying.

And yes, I agree with you, we do have an enviable track-record on democracy and justice. We might even be world leaders in it.