‘Betrayal’ as soldiers face Iraq prosecution

Servicemen told they could be charged over teenager’s death 10 years after being cleared

THREE servicemen – including a decorated major – face prosecution for manslaughter over the death of an Iraqi teenager 13 years ago in a move branded a “betrayal” of British veterans.

The soldiers, two of whom are still serving, were informed last week that they could be charged over the death of a 19-year-old who drowned in 2003 in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.

The decision to consider charges comes despite a military investigation as long ago as 2006 that cleared the three men of wrongdoing.

Last night, Johnny Mercer, chairman of a parliamentary defence committee, called the new investigation a “betrayal” and “a self-inflicted disgrace”.

The prosecution – should it go ahead – would be the first as a result of criminal inquiries carried out by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat).

Mr Mercer called for Ihat, which is pursuing almost 1,500 allegations of abuse made against British troops by Iraqi civilians, to be closed down.

He added that at least four serving soldiers had been banned from appearing before his committee, which is investigating the treatment of troops by Ihat, on the orders of ministers.

Mr Mercer said: “These men have been cleared before. How can soldiers keep being put under investigation time and time again? Ihat should be shut down. It is beyond a joke.

“The trouble is it is not really funny because it is destroying lives.”

Ihat was set up by the Labour government in 2010 to examine allegations of abuse, including murder and torture, made by hundreds of Iraqi civilians in cases brought to its attention by a law firm that closed in the summer over alleged irregularities.

The decision to recommend the prosecution will provoke uproar among service personnel that they can still be prosecuted so long after an event.

Hilary Meredith, the lawyer acting for the major, who has not been identi- fied, condemned the recommendation to prosecute her client. She said: “It is a disgrace. The death was investigated by the military, the case against the major dropped in 2006 and he was cleared.” She said the major, who has been awarded two medals for bravery and was wounded in Afghanistan, is suffering mental and physical health problems.

“He has lost his career; he has lost his sanity,” said Ms Meredith, who says she is aware of about 200 serving and former servicemen who have been in contact over fears of the Ihat inquiry.

The investigation follows the death in May 2003 of Said Shabram, 19, who drowned in the Shatt al-Arab waterway near Basra. Another man who was with him alleged that they were forced into the water at gunpoint by British troops.

Mr Shabram died two weeks after another Iraqi, Ahmed Jabbar Kareem Ali, 15, drowned in the same canal after being forced into the water at gunpoint.

Ali’s death was subject of a report last week by Sir George Newman, who condemned the actions of the troops.

The two cases have been used as evidence that the Army had adopted an unofficial practice of “wetting” looters by pushing them into the canal in an attempt to keep control on the streets of Basra in the aftermath of the invasion.

But the major has insisted his case has nothing to do with the death of Ali. The major protests his innocence and is understood to argue that Mr Shabram was pursued into the water by a mob and that he had actually tried to rescue the teenager. Ihat is investigating 1,490 cases of abuse, the vast majority

‘These men have been cleared before. How can soldiers be put under investigation again?’

brought to the unit’s attention by Public Interest Lawyers, which closed down in the summer after being stripped of legal aid funding over alleged irregularities in connection with a number of Iraqi claims.

An Ihat spokesman confirmed that a report into Mr Shabram’s death had been passed to military prosecutors.

The spokesman said: “We have referred three individuals to the Service Prosecution Authority (SPA).

“The referral asks the SPA to consider prosecution in relation to the death of a civilian Iraqi male, who drowned in May 2003.

“It is now up to the SPA to consider all of the evidence gathered by Ihat investigators and make a decision.”

She confirmed two of the individuals were serving soldiers and the third had retired from the Forces, adding: “We will not be commenting further.”

A investigation into Ihat and its workings has found that five investigators, supplied by Red Snapper Recruitment, a private contractor, have been removed from their Ihat duties in the past 12 months.

Ihat said they had left “as a result of performance or conduct-related concerns” raised by Ihat’s management.

The Ministry of Defence last night defended Ihat’s work while condemning the legal framework that had led to hundreds of cases being submitted by lawyers for investigation.

A spokesman said: “We’ve seen our legal system abused to falsely impugn our Armed Forces and we are putting an end to that. Equally, our Armed Forces are rightly held to the highest standards and, whilst rare, where there are credible claims of criminal behaviour, we should investigate them.

“Stamping out the many spurious claims will mean Ihat is better able to focus on the few credible ones.”

But Mr Mercer, whose defence subcommittee is holding an inquiry into the treatment of troops facing investigation, accused the MoD of preventing serving officers from giving evidence.

Mr Mercer said at least four soldiers – among them the commanding officer of the major facing prosecution – had been banned from appearing before his committee on the orders of ministers.

The Government was effectively forced to set up Ihat after a number of adverse judicial rulings.

Britain faced being taken to the International Criminal Court and prosecuted for war crimes if it wasn’t seen to be fully investigating claims of abuse.