Equipment deficiencies and the injured soldier: a critical evaluation of the MoD's liability under the law of tort

Abstract

There is a negative portrayal of contemporary conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of the rise in the number of deaths of service personnel. The common view of the media, coroners, military charities and academic commentators is that this is a result of the failure of the MoD and the Government to provide adequate equipment to service personnel on the battlefield.

Through the critical evaluation of key equipment cases, combat immunity law, human rights law and health and safety legislation and civil law this thesis will evaluate whether the MoD can be held liable in tort for the procurement of inadequate equipment
on the battlefield, and whether service personnel are able to rely upon any legal remedies in the event that injury is sustained in combat as a result of
equipment deficiencies.

In order to investigate whether the MoD can be held liable in tort for equipment deficiencies the thesis will consider current civil law in establishing whether the MoD owed a duty of care in combat and if so, in which circumstances that duty of care has been breached. The thesis will consider the doctrine of combat immunity and whether it imposes restrictions on service personnel’s human rights or whether the Human Rights Act surpasses combat immunity, before turning to the evaluation of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and whether it adequately compensated injured service personnel.