No easy answers to ‘mercy killings’

There are dramatic war movies depicting the shooting of severely wounded enemy soldiers – and then there is the real thing. A cinema audience might regard such killing as shocking but excusable. But in real life?

SAS veteran Sergeant Colin Maclachlan has said his motive was “entirely humane” when he shot dead “two or three” fatally injured enemy combatants during the 2003 invasion, and defended this as “a mercy killing”. But after confessing to them in a book he now faces a murder inquiry. Killing mortally wounded enemy soldiers on the battlefield to end their suffering out of mercy is illegal under UK military law and against standards laid down by the Geneva Conventions.

But how is a court of law to determine the circumstances some 13 years after the event? Where will independent witnesses be found? Can a courtroom reconstruct the dilemma posed where the choice is to leave combatants to die in agony? And how can it re-create events unfolding in the middle of a war zone and all the hazards faced at the time?

This is one of a large number of cases where British troops find themselves under criminal investigation over actions in the Iraq war. Prime Minister Theresa May last month raised concerns over the “industrial scale” of claims lodged, with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team considering claims relating to more than 1,500 individuals, ranging from ill-treatment during detention to assault and death by shooting.

Whatever legal proceedings arise in the Maclachan case, the reality of the acute ethical dilemma posed and the extreme danger faced in war zone conditions must surely be given full weight.