Troops at risk from ‘parasitic’ law firms
Head of Army and Defence Secretary join forces to condemn claims against military
FABRICATED legal claims made against the military could undermine Britain’s ability to fight future wars, the head of the Army warns today. In an exclusive interview with The
Daily Telegraph, General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the General Staff, warned that the threat of legal action would put soldiers in fear of making “honest mistakes” in war zones.
The Ministry of Defence is facing an unprecedented number of lawsuits against military personnel relating to the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, with more than 1,500 claims of abuse being made to the governmentfunded Iraq Historic Allegations Team.
“There is the potential for less scrupulous individuals to try and find ways of fabricating potential cases against soldiers, and that is very sad,” said Sir Nicholas. “It is something that would, over time, undermine our ability to take the sorts of risks that are necessary to be able to prevail on the battlefield.”
Sir Nicholas, 56, who commanded British forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan before his appointment to head the Army in September 2014, said the threat posed the greatest risk to junior officers.
Lawyers have been accused of conducting a “witch hunt” against British troops who are facing claims of unlawful killing of Iraqi and Afghan civilians.
Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, last night added his backing to Sir Nick’s criticism of unscrupulous claims being made against the military. “The Government is prepared to do whatever it takes to tackle these parasitic law firms who churn out often spurious claims against our Armed Forces on an industrial scale,” he said.
“Every false, distorted or exaggerated claim diverts defence spending from the front line and could serve to constrain the Armed Forces in their operational effectiveness. Reducing them will also allow us the space to investigate the small number of more serious allegations.”
As well as the threat of being sued by lawyers representing Iraqi victims, Sir Nick also spoke of his fears junior officers could face action from families of soldiers killed in action after following orders from their superiors. He added: “If our soldiers are forever worrying that they might be sued because the piece of equipment that they’re using is not the best piece of equipment in the world, then that is clearly a potential risk to the freedom of action which we need to encourage in order to be able to beat our opponent”
Mr Fallon is said to be looking at ways to provide better protection from legal persecution for military personnel serving in conflict zones.
Earlier this week, Penny Mordaunt, the junior defence minister, warned that lawyers were using European human rights legislation that was not written for conflict situations to bring claims against British troops.
AS HEAD of the British Army, General Sir Nick Carter is no stranger to people in the military making the ultimate sacrifice. During demanding command tours in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, he came to terms with his soldiers being killed or suffering serious injury on a regular basis.
Even so, the death of British polar explorer Henry Worsley last week following his heroic attempt at the world’s first solo, unassisted crossing of Antarctica came as a particularly bitter blow.
A former officer in the SAS and friend of the Duke of Cambridge, Mr Worsley was a close friend and contemporary of Sir Nick whose own action-packed military career has seen him undertake tours of duty in many of the world’s major trouble spots.
“We go back 35 years,” Sir Nick, 56, recalled during an exclusive interview with “I was his best man, and we’re godfather to each other’s children.
“He was one of the most understated but bravest people I have known, with an extraordinary breadth of interests. One of the things he used to do to keep himself relaxed was to sew and do tapestry.
“There was an inner confidence about him which allowed him to be an extraordinarily hard man, but without you ever knowing he was a hard man.
“Like all really brave people, you didn’t really know he was brave, because he didn’t have to let it show. He didn’t have to put up a mask to pretend he was very strong and virile. He just quietly delivered.”
Sir Nick believes the example set by Mr Worsley, during a distinguished military career that saw him serve SAS tours in Bosnia and Afghanistan as well as his courageous endeavours in the Antarctic, will help the British public to have a better understanding of the core values that underpin today’s Army.
“One of the challenges I face as Chief of the General Staff is that, paradoxically, we’ve never been more popular, with 91 per cent approval rating. But I also think that I cannot remember a time when we were less well understood.”
After the serious losses and injuries sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sir Nick is concerned that much of that support has been generated out of sympathy, rather than admiration for his soldiers’ achievements.
“What I absolutely don’t want is for us to be popular because we’re regarded as victims. No soldier wants to be regarded as a victim. They want to be regarded as a hero.”
In that context, Sir Nick believes Mr Worsley’s exploits and leadership qualities make him the perfect role model for future generations of British soldiers. “He was a genuinely inspirational leader who cared sincerely about those he led and he had the ability to identify with an extraordinarily diverse collection of people” – qualities Sir Nick believes will be increasingly vital as the Army tackles whatever new challenges that may lie ahead. Since taking over as head of the Army in September 2014, his main priority has been to undertake important changes to its structure to make it more flexible and adaptable to deal with future conflicts.
“The character of conflict has significantly changed over the course of the last 10 to 15 years,” he explained. “The Army has got to be really quite adaptable to be able to deal with the potential eventualities we might have to confront.
“When I grew up in the Cold War, it was straightforward. We were at four hours’ notice to move, we sat in our barracks in Germany, we knew where all our equipment was, we knew where our deployment positions were and we were ready to go for a very clear and present threat that we understood.”
But the range of the challenges the British military faces today means the Army needs to be far more flexible in how it responds. On one level, it needs to be able to deal with the state-onstate threats, such as responding to acts of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, which would require the deployment of more traditional heavy armour, such as Challenger tanks. On the other, it must be able to respond quickly to threats posed by terror groups such as Islamic State (Isil) and Hezbollah in the Middle East.
“You can’t necessarily bet on either horse,” said Sir Nick. “What you’ve got to be able to do is to be able to pick a sensible middle ground and then be able to adapt accordingly.” With this in mind, he has set about changing the Army’s traditional structure, including the introduction of two “strike brigades” that can respond quickly and effectively in an emergency.
Married with four children, Sir Nick is a keen sportsman who is regarded by his colleagues as one of the brightest officers of his generation. Since taking his new role, he has used his wealth of command experience from tours dating back to Northern Ireland and Bosnia to give the Army a more modern and dynamic image.
One of his biggest challenges has been to ensure that, while making these changes, the Army has lost none of its war-fighting capabilities despite having its strength cut by 20 per cent following the Government’s controversial Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in 2010.
In particular, he has been under pressure to ensure the Army could, if so required, deploy a division-strength force similar to those used in Iraq and Afghanistan, a capability that has been seriously questioned by a number of senior US defence officials.
“The two times the Army has fielded a division to fight, in 1990 and 2003, the build-up took some six months,” he said. “If we were required to do a similar intervention it would, given sufficient warning, be possible to do a similar operation.”
His bigger concern, though, is that the Army is better prepared for future conflicts than it has been in the past. “We had little understanding of the environment in Afghanistan before we arrived there and I would hope that is one of the things the Army is getting better at.”
The Government’s decision to fix military spending at two per cent of
‘The ability to seize opportunities is absolutely fundamental if you are going to beat your opponent’
GDP during last year’s SDSR means he now has the financial backing to make significant changes.
To give his soldiers a better understanding of the local conditions they might be operating in, Sir Nick is setting up a number of specialised infantry battalions that will concentrate on particular regions of the world, such as West Africa, Eastern Europe and the Gulf.
Sir Nick also wants to devolve more responsibility to young officers to take decisions on the ground rather than awaiting orders from above. “It is at this level that opportunities turn up on the battlefield and the ability to seize opportunities is absolutely fundamental if you are going to beat your opponent,” he said.
And, at a time when politicians have been reluctant to commit ground forces to the recent conflicts in Libya and Syria, Sir Nick is keen that the Army’s numerous strengths are not overlooked. “I like seeing the Army being used. It’s important to me to make the point that the Army has got great utilities. If it’s flooding in Cumbria, if it’s support for the police at home, if it’s in support of our European allies on their borders, then I want to see the Army being used.”