179 British soldiers died during the Iraq War (Picture: PA)

The battlefield is not beyond the reach of human rights legislation and families of British soldiers killed in Iraq can bring damages claims against the government, the highest court in the land has ruled.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court said relatives can sue for negligence under the Human Rights Act, meaning that several claims can now proceed to trial.

Three families had initially begun legal action following the death of three soldiers in roadside bombs while in Snatch Land Rovers after the US-led invasion of 2003.

Lawyers representing soldiers who died as a result of so-called ‘friendly fire’ also later became involved in the litigation.




Relatives said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to provide armoured vehicles or equipment which could have saved lives, and should pay compensation.

The MoD has always insisted decisions about battlefield equipment are for politicians and military commanders.

‘We have constantly argued that the MoD’s position is morally and legally indefensible,’ commented Shubhaa Srinivasan, from law firm Leigh Day, which represents the families of soldiers killed in a friendly fire incident involving a Challenger tank in 2003.

Some of the claims centred on the vulnerability of the Snatch Land Rover (Picture: File)

‘The claimants’ claims have always been about decisions taken on provision of adequate equipment and training to British troops which are far removed from the battlefield.’

Wendy Hewitt, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s deputy director, said that with the court’s ruling ‘we are no longer expecting our armed forces to fully respect the rights of civilians abroad while not being properly protected themselves’.

‘This is not about interfering with the way military decisions are made in the field but how everyone serving in the armed forces is given the protections they deserve,’ she added.

Lawyer Jocelyn Cockburn, of law firm Hodge Jones & Allen and who represents some of the families, said of the ruling: ‘I think what they have established is what seems to many families is common sense – that soldiers have human rights, and they do remain within the jurisdiction of the UK, and they don’t lose those because they are on the battlefield.’

Sue Smith, the mother of Private Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, who died in July 2005 after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up, accused the MoD of treating soldiers as ‘sub-human with no rights’.

‘It’s been a long fight but it’s absolutely brilliant,’ she went on to say. ‘Now serving soldiers have got human rights.’

Colin Redpath, the father of Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, Essex, who died in a similar incident in August 2007, added: ‘Hopefully this will help our armed forces’ safety in future combat zones. The Ministry of Defence has got a duty to supply the right equipment. Now that has been established.

Defence secretary Philip Hammond said he was very concerned at aspects of the ruling (Picture: PA)

‘It’s probably going to be a long hard fight from now on. But we have got to do it.’



David Robinson, military claims coordinator at Thomspons Solicitors, said the ruling was ‘about justice’.

‘For too long the government has refused to deal with claims brought by service personnel and their families, hiding behind “combat immunity” when in fact the injury or death was actually down to MoD failings,’ he said.

Liberty legal officer Emma Norton added: ‘Those sent abroad to fight do not leave their small bundle of fundamental rights with anxious families at home.

‘It may be little consolation to those grieving for lost loved ones but it is vital to future generations of UK military personnel that they have the protection of the Human Rights Act.’

Defence secretary Philip Hammond insisted the protection of troops was the MoD’s ‘most important priority’

‘However, I am very concerned at the wider implications of this judgment, which could ultimately make it more difficult for our troops to carry out operations and potentially throws open a wide range of military decisions to the uncertainty of litigation.’