VM445 - Accountability for preventable armed forces deaths Motion 2017Watch
VM445 - Accountability for preventable armed forces deaths Motion 2017, TSR Green Party
This House notes the apology given to the family of Private Philip Hewitt, who died in 2005 whilst serving in Her Majesty's Forces in Iraq after the vehicle he was in was blown up. This House notes the comments made in the Chilcot Inquiry Report about Snatch Land Rovers being vulnerable to bombs.
This House believes that sending troops to war without suitable equipment is inexcusable, and that given the history of terrorists blowing up vehicles of the armed forces (such as by the Provisional IRA on more than one occasion), highly foreseeable. This House believes that those principally responsible for the decision to send under-equipped forces into conflict in these circumstances should be held accountable.
This House therefore asks the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate and consider possible criminal charges against the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Anthony Blair, and the Defence Secretary, Mr Geoff Hoon.
Nay on this although I would support a revised and watered down motion.
- Political Ambassador
Agree with the sentiment, but surely this would go against the non-retroactivity principle?
The only law I could think of that would sort of apply would be the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, specifically under section 1(1) which dictates:
An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised—
(a)causes a person's death, and
(b)amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.
However, I am doubtful that this act applies retroactively and section 4 states:
(1)Any duty of care owed by the Ministry of Defence in respect of—
(a)operations within subsection (2),
(b)activities carried on in preparation for, or directly in support of, such operations, or
(c)training of a hazardous nature, or training carried out in a hazardous way, which it is considered needs to be carried out, or carried out in that way, in order to improve or maintain the effectiveness of the armed forces with respect to such operations,
is not a “relevant duty of care”.
(2)The operations within this subsection are operations, including peacekeeping operations and operations for dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or serious public disorder, in the course of which members of the armed forces come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance.
Thus, annulling any duty of care, a necessary requirement for the act.
Furthermore, regardless of the particular law used, the defence of 'volenti non fit injuria' can be used 'which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict'
One Nay has been removed due to an invalid vote.
The Ayes to the right, 9.
The Noes to the left, 28.
I think the Noes have it! The Noes have it! Unlock!!