Smith v Ministry of Defence

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Hope,Lord Walker,Lady Hale,Lord Kerr,Lord Mance,Lord Wilson,Lord Carnwath
Judgment Date19 June 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] UKSC 41
CourtSupreme Court
Date19 June 2013
Smith and others (FC)
(Appellants)
and
The Ministry of Defence
(Respondent)
Ellis (FC)
(Respondent)
and
The Ministry of Defence
(Appellant)
Allbutt and others (FC)
(Respondents)
and
The Ministry of Defence
(Appellant)

[2013] UKSC 41

Before

Lord Hope, Deputy President

Lord Walker

Lady Hale

Lord Mance

Lord Kerr

Lord Wilson

Lord Carnwath

THE SUPREME COURT

Trinity Term

On appeal from: [2011] EWHC 1678 QB; [2012] EWCA Civ 1365

Appellant ( Smith)

Robert Weir QC

Jessica Simor QC

(Instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen LLP)

Intervener (JUSTICE)

Alex Bailin QC

Iain Steele

Edward Craven

(Instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP)

Appellant

James Eadie QC

Sarah Moore

Karen Steyn

David Pievsky

(Instructed by Treasury Solicitors)

Appellant

James Eadie QC

Sarah Moore

Karen Steyn

David Pievsky

(Instructed by Treasury Solicitors)

Respondent

James Eadie QC

Sarah Moore

Karen Steyn

David Pievsky

(Instructed by Treasury Solicitors)

Intervener

Helen Mountfield QC

Elizabeth Prochaska

(Instructed by The Equality and Human Rights Commission)

Respondent ( Ellis)

Robert Weir QC

Jessica Simor QC

(Instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen LLP)

Respondent ( Allbutt)

Richard Hermer QC

Ben Silverstone

(Instructed by Leigh Day & Co)

Heard on 18, 19, 20 and 21 February 2013

Lord Hope (with whom Lord Walker, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr agree)

1

These proceedings arise out of the deaths of three young men who lost their lives while serving in the British Army in Iraq and the suffering by two other young servicemen of serious injuries. The units in which they were serving were sent to Iraq as part of Operation TELIC. This operation, which lasted from January 2003 to July 2009, had two distinct phases of military activity. The first began on 19 March 2003 when Iraq was invaded by coalition forces including those from the United Kingdom. The second phase began on 1 May 2003 when major combat operations ceased and were replaced by a period of military occupation. During much of that time there was a constant threat of enemy action by insurgents opposed to the interim Iraqi government.

2

On 25 March 2003 Corporal Stephen Allbutt, who was the husband of the claimant Ms Deborah Allbutt, Lance Corporal Daniel Twiddy and Trooper Andrew Julien were serving with the Queen's Royal Lancers as part of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers battle group during the fourth day of the offensive by British troops to take Basra. They were in one of a number of Challenger II tanks which had been placed at a dam in hull down positions to minimise their visibility to the enemy. Just after midnight a Challenger II tank of the Second Royal Tank Regiment which had been assigned to the 1 st Battalion Black Watch battle group and was commanded by Lt Pinkstone crossed over onto the enemy side of a canal to take up a guarding position some distance to the south east of the dam. At about 0050 hrs Lt Pinkstone identified two hot spots through his thermal imaging sights which he thought might be personnel moving in and out of a bunker. He described the location to Sgt Donlon who was unable to identify the hot spots for himself because the description he was given was incorrect. After Lt Pinkstone had identified a further four hot spots in the same area he was given permission to fire by Sgt Donlon.

3

Lt Pinkstone's tank fired a first round of high explosive shell at about 0120 hrs and a second round shortly afterwards. The hot spots that he had observed were in fact men on top of Cpl Albutt's Challenger II tank at the dam. The first shell landed short of the tank, but the explosion blew off the men who were on top of it including Lance Corporal Twiddy. The second shell entered the tank and killed Cpl Allbutt, injured Trooper Julien and caused further injury to Lance Corporal Twiddy. It also killed Trooper David Clarke: see R (Gentle and another) v Prime Minister [2008] UKHL 20, [2008] AC 1356, para 1. Lt Pinkstone did not know of the presence at the dam of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers battle group. He did not realise that he was firing back across the canal, as he was disorientated and believed that he was firing in a different direction.

4

In 2005 Private Phillip Hewett, who was the son of the claimant Susan Smith, was serving with 1 st Battalion the Staffordshire Regiment. On 10 May 2005 he was deployed to Camp Abu Naji, near the town of Al Amarah in the Maysan Province of Iraq. He was assigned to a battle group working alongside soldiers from other battalions. In mid-July 2005 there was a substantial threat against Camp Abu Naji from rocket attacks and an operation was launched to counter this threat by restricting the movement of insurgent anti-Iraqi forces.

5

On 15 July 2005 Pte Hewett was assigned to a mobile unit which was sent that evening to patrol around Al Amarah. The unit consisted of three Snatch Land Rovers. Snatch Land Rovers are lightly armoured. Their armour is designed to provide limited protection against ballistic threats, such as those from small arms fire. It provided no protection, or no significant protection, against improvised explosive devices ("IEDs"). It was escorted into, but not around, the town by a Warrior fighting vehicle. Warriors are heavily armoured and tracked, and are capable of carrying seven or eight personnel as well as the crew. Pte Hewett was in the lead Snatch Land Rover as its driver with 2 nd Lt Richard Shearer. It had no electronic counter measures ("ECMs") to protect it against the threat of IEDs.

6

At about 0115 hrs on 16 July 2005 an explosion was heard in the vicinity of the stadium in Al Amarah. 2 nd Lt Shearer decided to investigate the explosion. As the Snatch Land Rovers were driving down the single road to the stadium an IED detonated level with the lead vehicle. Pte Hewett, 2 nd Lt Shearer and another soldier who was acting as top cover died in the explosion, and two other occupants of the vehicle were seriously injured.

7

In 2006 Private Lee Ellis, who was the father of the claimant Courtney Ellis and the brother of the claimant Karla Ellis, was serving with the 2 nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. His unit was attached to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and was based at Camp Abu Naji. On 28 February 2006 Pte Ellis was the driver of a Snatch Land Rover in a patrol of three Warriors and two Snatch Land Rovers which made a journey from the Camp to the Iraqi police headquarters in Al Amarah. Captain Richard Holmes and another soldier were in the same vehicle.

8

On the return journey from the police headquarters an IED was detonated level with the lead Snatch Land Rover driven by Pte Ellis. He and Captain Holmes were killed by the explosion and another soldier in the vehicle was injured. The vehicle had been fitted with an ECM, but a new part of that equipment known as element A was not fitted to it at that time. Element A was fitted to the other Snatch Land Rovers used in the Camp within a few days of the incident.

The claims
9

The claims by Ms Deborah Allbutt, Lance Corporal Daniel Twiddy and Trooper Andrew Julien ("the Challenger claims") are brought in negligence at common law only. They make two principal claims. First, they allege a failure to ensure that the claimants' tank and the tanks of the battle group that fired on it were properly equipped with the technology and equipment that would have prevented the incident. That equipment falls into two categories: target identity devices that provide automatic confirmation as to whether a vehicle is a friend or foe; and situational awareness equipment that permits tank crews to locate their position and direction of sight accurately. Secondly, they allege that the Ministry of Defence ("the MOD") was negligent in failing to provide soldiers with adequate recognition training pre-deployment and also in theatre.

10

The claims by Susan Smith and by Courtney and Karla Ellis ("the Snatch Land Rover claims") fall into two parts. The first, which is common to all three claimants, is that the MOD breached article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to take measures within the scope of its powers which, judged reasonably, it might have been expected to take in the light of the real and immediate risk to life of soldiers who were required to patrol in Snatch Land Rovers. The second, which is brought by Courtney Ellis only, is based on negligence at common law.

11

The particulars of the Smith claim under article 2 of the Convention are that the MOD (i) failed to provide better/medium armoured vehicles for use by Pte Hewett's commander which, if provided, would have been used for Pte Hewett's patrol, (ii) failed to ensure that any patrol inside Al Amarah was led by a Warrior, (iii) caused or permitted a patrol of three Snatch Land Rovers to proceed inside Al Amarah, especially when there was no ECM on the lead Snatch Land Rover and it knew or ought to have known that ECMs were ineffective against the triggers that were in use by the insurgents and no suitable counter measures had been provided, (iv) permitted the patrol of Snatch Land Rovers to investigate the bomb blast, especially when there was only one road to the decoy bomb site, (v) failed to provide other vehicles for route clearing and route planning ahead of the Snatch Land Rovers, (vi) failed to provide suitable counter measures to IEDs in the light of the death of Lance Corporal Brackenbury, who was killed by an IED while in a Snatch Land Rover on 29 May 2005 and (vii) failed to use means other than patrols to combat the threat posed by the insurgents.

12

The particulars of the Ellis claim under article 2 and in negligence are that the MOD failed (i) to limit his patrol to better, medium or heavily armoured vehicles, (ii) to provide any or any sufficient better or armoured vehicle for use by Pte Ellis's commander which, had they been provided,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • R v McGregor,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 17 February 2023
    ...2 S.C.R. 207; R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990); Smith v. Ministry of Defence, [2013] UKSC 41, [2014] A.C. 52; Kaunda v. President of the Republic of South Africa, [2004] ZACC 5, 2005 (4) S.A. 235; Young v. Attorney-General, [2018] NZC......
  • R. v. McGregor, 2023 SCC 4
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 17 February 2023
    ...2 S.C.R. 207; R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; United States v. Verdugo‑Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990); Smith v. Ministry of Defence, [2013] UKSC 41, [2014] A.C. 52; Kaunda v. President of the Republic of South Africa, [2004] ZACC 5, 2005 (4) S.A. 235; Young v. Attorney‑General, [2018] NZC......
  • Mr David Anthony Winstanley v Professor Brian D Sleeman (First Defendant) University of Leeds (Second Defendnat)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 13 December 2013
    ...v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13, tab 20 was one such example. In that case, the court abolished immunity from suit for experts, and Smith v MOD [2013] UKSC 41 at tab 22 where the court had circumscribed the principle of combat immunity. It should be said, for the sake of accuracy, that that case di......
  • The Secretary of State for Justice v A Local Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 October 2021
    ...apply to Strasbourg, and the error made by the domestic courts will remain uncorrected.” He also referred to Smith v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41, [2014] AC 52, in which Lord Hope, with whom Lord Walker, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr agreed, summarised the position at para [43]: “Lord Bin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • The Limits Of Combat immunity
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 21 July 2013
    ...were either killed or seriously injured: Smith v Ministry of Defence, Ellis v Ministry of Defence, Allbutt v Ministry of Defence, [2013] UKSC 41. One issue was the application of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is not of particular relevance to us in Canada; the claims framed......
5 books & journal articles

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