‘PM must do more to protect soldiers from lawyers’

Cameron should tackle Human Rights Act to stop claims against troops, says former Army commander

DAVID CAMERON’s efforts to stop “ambulance-chasing” lawyers filing unsubstantiated claims against veterans “does not go far enough” because soldiers could still face action under human rights laws, a former commander has claimed.

Col Richard Kemp, who led British troops in Afghanistan, told The Daily

Telegraph that until British soldiers were no longer bound by the Human Rights Act while fighting, they were still vulnerable to legal action.

David Cameron pledged to replace the legislation in his 2015 election manifesto with a British Bill of Rights but the Government is yet to make the legal change.

It came as the Prime Minister or- dered action to bring a halt to “spurious” legal claims against veterans of the Iraq War amid growing outcry at the legal cases stacking up against former soldiers.

Mr Cameron has asked ministers on the National Security Council to create a plan to “stamp out” the “industry” trying to profit from servicemen.

Proposals being considered include curbing “no win, no fee” arrangements for claims against veterans, limiting legal aid to those who have lived in Britain for a year and tougher penalties for law firms that abuse the system. Mr Cameron said: “It is clear that there is now an industry trying to profit from spurious claims lodged against our brave servicemen and women who fought in Iraq. This is unacceptable and no way to treat the people who risk their lives to keep our country safe – it has got to end.”

Around 280 veterans have been sent documents by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) saying they were involved in an incident under investigation. Col Kemp said: “I think it’s a good thing if it translates into action rather than words, but I don’t think it goes far enough. It will not help the soldiers being currently prosecuted and persecuted, but it should help in the future.

“The removal of a large amount of the financial incentive is critical and right, but it also needs to remove the legal basis on which these claims are made.” He said that as long as troops were bound by the Human Rights Act on operations, then they could be under threat from similar law claims.

Yesterday, Simon Weston, who was severely wounded during the Falklands War, called on “ambulance-chasing” lawyers to leave their “ivory towers” and understand the pressure soldiers are under in battle.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, also criticised lawyers who targeted soldiers: “They have ambulance-chasing lawyers, who frankly don’t make their lives any easier with some of the cases they try to bring, and make it very hard for them to do their jobs.”

Ambulance-chasing lawyers are a blight on the military, and it is the taxpayers who foot the bill for their avarice. One of the most notorious examples of this phenomenon was the Al-Sweady inquiry into mistreatment of Iraqis at the Battle of Danny Boy in May 2004. It took five years to complete this farce, at a cost of £31 million. The legal fees are thought to have totalled around £5 million. The inquiry concluded that while some mistreatment had occurred, allegations of torture, mutilation and murder were baseless and the product of claimants’ “deliberate and calculated lies”.

The Government accused Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day, two legal firms that brought claims to Al-Sweady, of trying to “traduce” the reputations of soldiers. A solicitor for Leigh Day allegedly shredded one key document that could have cast doubt upon the character of Iraqi witnesses. Both firms were referred to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority. There is not only an obvious financial incentive behind their actions but also, it appears, a political prejudice. It is believed that Emily Thornberry, the new shadow defence secretary, has attended two Leigh Day Christmas parties and accepted almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from them over a two-year period. The Labour Party received almost £20,000 in “staff costs” from the firm in 2012.

Happily, Downing Street has now detailed its plans to crack down on “spurious” claims against Armed Forces personnel. These include restrictions on the financial incentives for law firms to pursue “no win, no fee” claims, a strict time limit on bringing legal action, and a ban on foreigners claiming legal aid unless they have lived in the UK for 12 months. David Cameron has asked his officials to look into the possibility of suing Leigh Day.

All of these moves are most welcomed. Everyone accepts that if a soldier commits a crime then they should be tried and punished. But surely accusations should be pursued swiftly and through regular criminal channels, rather than dragged out through an overlong civil process? Human rights law was not introduced with the intention of hampering military operations, or using the courts to cast political judgment on controversial wars.

The scale of the rush to lodge complaints is almost beyond belief. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) has informed around 280 veterans that they are under investigation. Because of the backlog in cases, many of those men and women do not expect to see their cases closed until some time in the next decade. That is grossly unfair. IHAT should discriminate sensibly between cases that are worthy of attention and those that are plainly spurious.

Meanwhile, the Government needs to do more to uphold the good name of the military, which is under attack from all directions. Lord Bramall, a war hero and former head of the Army, is still waiting for a much needed apology from the Met over its inept handling of a false allegation of sexual abuse. British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles continue to face the possibility of prosecution: former British soldier David Holden is to be reinvestigated over the shooting of an unarmed Catholic man in 1988. And in the minds of some on the Left, the controversies of the Iraq War taint British soldiers by association.

Mr Cameron needs to be more proactive in resisting this cultural slide towards denigration of the Armed Forces. Better funding – both for serving personnel and veterans – is critical. But so is countering outrageous falsehoods. When a soldier is fighting to defend their country, they need to know that their country has their back. The military life is full of risk; the soldier is called upon to take life-and-death decisions under enormous stress.

When civilians are hurt or killed, of course the circumstances should be investigated and the truth established. But it is inhumane to hound soldiers long after the conflicts in which they fought. Aside from being cruel to the individual, it risks discouraging thousands of men and women from pursuing one of the noblest professions there is.