Conflict and Wars in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • HM and Others (Article 15(c)
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 12 Octubre 2012

    These can properly be regarded as indiscriminate in the sense that, albeit they may have specific or general targets, they inevitably expose the ordinary civilian who happens to be at the scene to what has been described in argument as collateral damage. The means adopted may be bombs, which can affect others besides the target, or shootings, which produce a lesser but nonetheless real risk of collateral damage.

    In HM1 at [73] the Tribunal decided that an attempt to distinguish between a real risk of targeted and incidental killing of civilians during armed conflict was not a helpful exercise. We agree, but in assessing whether the risk reaches the level required by the CJEU, focus on the evidence about the numbers of civilians killed or wounded is obviously of prime importance. Thus we have been told that each death can be multiplied up to seven times when considering injuries to bystanders.

  • HM (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 10 Junio 2010

    Such violence is indiscriminate in effect even if not necessarily in aim.

  • HH & others (Mogadishu: armed conflict: risk)
    • Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
    • 22 Noviembre 2007

    The Tribunal received considerable oral and written submissions on one particular issue of subsidiary protection, as provided in Chapter V of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (“the Qualification Directive”): the risk of suffering the form of serious harm identified in article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, namely, a serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.

  • QD (Iraq) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 Junio 2009

    Nor, however, has the judgment introduced an additional test of exceptionality. By using the words “exceptional” and “exceptionally” it is simply stressing that it is not every armed conflict or violent situation which will attract the protection of article 15(c), but only one where the level of violence is such that, without anything to render them a particular target, civilians face real risks to their life or personal safety.

  • Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 Febrero 1996

    Warfare perhaps never did admit of such a distinction, but now it would be quite absurd.

  • R (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 Mayo 2009

    The question is therefore whether the principles apply to soldiers on active service in Iraq. They are under the control of and subject to army discipline. We see no reason why they should not have the same protection as is afforded by article 2 to a conscript.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT