It is surprising enough in itself that it takes a court to decide that being sent into battle with inadequate equipment is a breach of your human rights. That Des Browne then thinks he may appeal against the decision beggers belief.
There is obviously a difference between equipment that breaks down vs inadequate equipment. Nothing can be 100% reliable and things will break, especially in hard conditions, and that is just life (or not in this case). But there seem to ahve been a number of occasions when soldiers have been sent into battle without body armour, without radios, without decent guns (when a model is proven to repeatedly fail then that moves past the normal "break down" defence).
Soldiers are going to die in battle. Sadly it is unavoidable. But they have rights, and they should expect their country to do the best for them, to at least reduce the chances of them dieing by providing them with equipment up to the task.
If the MOD really do appeal against this then I am afraid it shows a blatant disregard for human life, and an incredible distain for those willing to risk their lives for what we hold to be right.
3 comments:
uhoh, me again. Firstly I am, on the face of it entirely and irredeemably in support of the outcome of this case. I firmly believe that the rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act must be applicable to soldiers (and other services)in war.
BUT much as we might not want it to be - and it shouldn't be, it is a legal argument. We don't (as far as i know) know the grounds of appeal. If the outcome of the case was founded on bad law or interpretation of the law it will be of no benefit to anyone once it is used. If the judge did make an error in reaching his conclusion then it shouldn't be allowed as a precedent. If the appeal is technical, then much as i hate technicalities it is better, far far better in my view that that is clarified now than when another family has to go through this and finds that their reliance on this case was ill founded.
There is no automatic right to appeal, the judge giving permission to appeal must have felt there were sufficient grounds for allowing permission to appeal. I hope as most people that the appeal, substnatially fails, but i also hope that in doing so it leads to good, clear and vigorous law.
Noone wants bad law. Getting this outcome was a huge, and wonderful victory for common sense and sanity, but legally - legally there are unfortunately way too many clever lawyers out there who will be paid to decimate another family's hope for justice if this decision is not made absolutely and completely beyond reproach.
I do like the fact that we are such an ecletic mix that there is always someone who can shed more light.
However, in this case we think that Des is going for Option A, that the government want to simply make sure we are all clear about the law or Option B, don't like being told off.
Call me a cynical but, with a government that have repeatedly been shown to break the law on many issues and who refuse to hold public enquiries, I think it might be B.
oh for sure he's doing it for all the wrong reasons, but the fact that he is doing it means that the law will be clearer as a result. If there really is an appealable point that destroys the decision at this first appeal, then whatever his motives, the appeal was better done now than later.
of course the fact that the matter has to be a question of argument at all is outrageous - but that is historical now, the HRA is what it is - and most of the time it is pretty useless.
Post a Comment