[Closed] MOD/Human Rights case

Not sure how ECHR judgements apply to a battlefield...

That said, the Covenant is broken - and requires fixing!

It just don't see how the Forces can function if they are constrained by something that guarantees a right to life when they sometimes have to order people to do something that will likely cause their death.

[i]something that will likely cause their death[/i]

Quite - though there is something to be said for having decent kit.

Just add the small print to the bottom of the army adverts. You know the ones. Join the army! Its great! Honest!

simply place, in 6pt type:

Caution! Joining the army may result in you being prematurely killed by an islamic fundamentalist loon. Mind you - everything's relative - that could happen on the tube. Go on. Sign up. We've got your flight booked to Kabul already

I get the impression it is to do with controlling the things that are within their power. For example if people die due to failing, sub standard or insufficient kit then the Government could be viewed as culpable. If they are killed in a war zone then that is (!!) out of the Governments control so leaving aside the justification for the conflict it is about doing as much as they reasonably can where they can in such a situation.

Caution! Joining the army may result in you being prematurely killed by an islamic fundamentalist* loon.

*Other extremist nutcases are also available. 😉

in a judgement last April, Mr Justice Collins ruled more widely that the MoD had an obligation to avoid or minimise risks to the lives of its troops, wherever they were serving - even while on patrol or in battle.

Otherwise, he said it risked breaching the "right to life" enshrined in the ECHR.

This is the important bit of the report. The question is over whether the military owes a duty of care to its soldiers and, if so, under what law and where in the world. The judge and the later finding said that the answers were yes the army does owe a duty of care, it owes it because the ECHR imposes it, and the ECHR applies to UK military even when they're in Iraq.

"Duty of care" and "the right to life" aren't absolute - they should really be "[a reasonable] duty of care [under the circumstances]" and "the right to life [unless there's a bloody good reason]". No-one guarantees that a soldier won't be killed (any more than a firefighter or a trawlerman won't be killed), just that they'll do whatever is appropriate to protect them. And "appropriate" doesn't mean "not allow them to do anything dangerous".

The soldier's family has won the right to say that a duty of care existed - now they have to prove that the MoD failed to act reasonably under the circumstances (presumably in providing the soldier with some bit of kit or water or something) i.e. that "didn't get around to it" or "we messed it up" isn't one of the "bloody good reasons". And that's not an easy job.