Does the Snatch Land Rover case place too many battlefield obligations on the MoD? Richard Scorer reports
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Smith and Others v The Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41 has attracted fierce criticism from many commentators who feel that the case takes human rights remedies a step too far. One observer argues that the decision effectively destroys the longstanding notion of combat immunity and makes the Ministry of Defence (MoD) susceptible to legal regulation whenever deaths or injuries occur on the battlefield—so much so as to raise the spectre of soldiers securing injunctions to stop or halt combat operations until the MoD can prove that the operation is adequately planned and resourced.
But does the decision really do this? The Smith case concerned the deaths of three British soldiers killed in Iraq and the suffering by two other young servicemen of serious injuries. The soldiers either had to carry out high risk activities in poorly armoured Snatch Land Rovers, which were struck by improvised explosive devices, or were injured in “friendly fire” incidents. The Supreme Court was
