Government reaffirms commitment to combat immunity plans after long silence

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed that it still intends to stop allowing soldiers injured while serving in the armed forces to pursue complaints through the courts, following speculation that the plans may have been dropped over the summer.

The issue concerns the concept of ‘combat immunity’, where those in charge cannot be held negligent for decisions made in the middle of combat and are under no duty of care to avoid causing loss or damage to their fellow soldiers or anyone else in combat circumstances. The controversial plans would expand this concept to remove the right of soldiers to complain through the courts even when the decisions that led to their injuries were not taken during combat, for example, if a soldier is injured because his or her vehicle was not provided with appropriate armour for the environment.

Instead of the courts, The Law Gazette reports that new plans would channel injured soldiers’ complaints into an internal compensation scheme. The government argues that this would reduce legal costs and avoid the stress of litigation for injured soldiers. However, critics of the plans point out that the new scheme would make the MoD both judge and jury in cases, creating a severe power imbalance. Others have pointed out legal expertise is necessary to help the cases of injured soldiers even after a complaint has been won.

Hilary Meredith, chief executive of Hilary Meredith Solicitors and a solicitor who has spent her career representing injured soldiers, told The Law Gazette: “The MoD, who caused the accident, are going to dictate how much is to be paid out, and also determine life expectancy, mobility and housing issues for each case. We ring-fence [the damages], make sure it is in a trust and make sure there is a Court of Protection involved if necessary.”

Nia Griffith, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, also criticised the plans. She said: “If the intention is to give the same as the claimant would be given in a court, then why not let the court make that decision? It gives you a nasty feeling of another agenda which is reducing these claims. It is important to understand the judiciary are there to make a difficult judgment as to what is the appropriate redress.”