Outcry as 3 soldiers face charges for killing Iraqi
THE decision to threaten a decorated major and two soldiers with manslaughter charges over the death of an Iraqi teenager 13 years ago triggered outrage last night.
It emerged that the trio could be charged despite huge question marks hanging over an initial probe into the teenager’s drowning.
The soldiers – two of whom are still serving – were cleared of any wrongdoing over the death in 2006 after being dragged through a ‘farcical’ three-year military investigation.
The case against them was dropped only two days into a hearing after it emerged the prosecution’s two key Iraqi ‘eyewitnesses’ had lied.
But now the serving officer and soldiers have been warned they face a new prosecution over the Iraqi’s death following a fresh investigation into historic cases. Last night, the decision was branded a ‘betrayal’ of war heroes that ‘shames Britain’.
Col Richard Kemp, who commanded British troops in Afghanistan, said: ‘This is disgraceful given the flaws in the original investigation. It is ridiculous that soldiers should be hounded for 13 years of their lives after putting their lives on the line.’ Lib Dem leader Tim Farron added: ‘These men have already been investigated and cleared. This shames Britain.’
The case was reviewed by the taxpayer-funded Iraq Historic Allegations Team.
It centres on the death of Said Shabram, 19, who drowned in the Shatt al-Arab waterway near Basra in May 2003. At the time, it was claimed that he had been forced into the water at gunpoint by British troops as a punishment for an alleged theft.
But the major, awarded two medals for bravery, is thought to have argued that Mr Shabram was pursued into the water by a mob and that he had tried to rescue the teenager. A probe ended in 2006 – just two days into what was meant to be a 10-day hearing – when defence barristers reportedly proved that the prosecution’s two key witnesses had lied.
A military dossier, leaked by a senior officer within the MoD, then shed light on a botched Royal Military Police investigation dogged by incompetence. It revealed how the prosecution’s ‘eyewitnesses’ lied and were motivated by financial gain; that defence documents were allegedly ‘lost’ by Army prosecutors; there was doubt that the body presented at the postmortem examination was that of the man the soldiers allegedly killed; that an Iraqi witness refused protection after supporting the soldiers may have been murdered by friends of the victim. The soldiers believed that was the end of the matter. But it was submitted to Ihat by the disgraced firm Public Interest Lawyers, which closed last month.
Then last week, Ihat passed the case on to military prosecutors and recommended the three soldiers be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
The Service Prosecuting Authority is now deciding whether or not to charge the soldiers, all members of 32 Engineer Regiment at the time, and drag them before a court martial. The prosecution would be the first as a result of criminal inquiries carried out by the 147-strong body.
It is the first time Ihat, investigating more than 1,500 allegations of wrongdoing by British troops, has recommended soldiers be charged with manslaughter. The major is now suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and is on sick leave. Tory MP Johnny Mercer, who called for Ihat to be shut down, said the new probe was a ‘betrayal’ and a ‘self-inflicted disgrace’.
In 2011 the MoD paid out a reported £100,000 in compensation to the family of the teenager. At the time the family were represented by Leigh Day law firm, but then PIL pursued a public law case against the MoD.
An MOD 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.’
A Leigh Day spokesman said: ‘Leigh Day brought the civil claim ... a resolution was reached with the MoD, the terms of which were agreed to be confidential. PIL pursued the public law case and this resulted in the case being referred to ihat.’