header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 July 2013 / Robert Weir KC
Issue: 7567 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

In combat

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
652326c

Robert Weir QC reports on the Snatch Land Rover case

Can soldiers or their families sue the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for a failure to provide them with appropriate equipment and training or for decisions made on the ground when, as a result, they are injured or killed in the course of active operations? Does this raise the spectre of soldiers obtaining injunctions against their commanders and refusing to go into battle on the basis that their human rights would be breached? Would this inevitably lead to defensive soldiering and impede the way in which decisions were made by politicians and military commanders in the national interest?

In Smith and others v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41, [2013] All ER (D) 167 (Jun), the Supreme Court had to tackle these issues when deciding whether to strike out claims brought for breach of Art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life) and in negligence by families of soldiers killed in Iraq in Snatch Land Rovers by explosions

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll