On 9 May 2011 the Friendly Fire cases concerning the deaths of Corporal Stephen John Allbutt (brought by widow Debi Allbutt), Lance Corporal Dan Twiddy and Trooper Andy Julien will commence in the London High Court to determine whether their claims against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) should be struck out because of combat immunity.
The MoD is also arguing that procuring, developing and equipping British troops against the risk of friendly fire attack during military operations require balancing scare resources and are decisions for politicians and the Army to make, not to be subjected to scrutiny by the courts.
On 25 March 2003, Stephen Allbutt was killed when his tank came under friendly fire by another British army tank in Southern Iraq. Two other soldiers, Dan Twiddy and Andy Julien suffered devastating injuries. Leigh Day & Co represents Stephen’s widow, Debi Allbutt, Dan and Andy against the MoD.
The MoD argues that our client’s claims are caught by combat immunity, which essentially means the MoD owes no duty of care to its soldiers during the ‘heat of battle’ or during the planning of a military operation that is certain to take place. The MoD also argue that it is not under any duty to provide a safe place of work to its soldiers, which includes developing, procuring and equipping British servicemen and women with adequate target identity devices, situational awareness equipment and training in visual identification of friendly forces before they are deployed to military operations around the world.
Our clients are vigorously challenging the MoD’s stand and the issues are going to be determined in the London High Court over a three day hearing commencing on 9 May. Should our clients win, their claims against the MoD may proceed but being unsuccessful could signal the end of their claims.
Shubhaa Srinivasan, partner representing the soldiers and their families says “Decisions during the heat of battle or even the lead up to battle were not the reasons for the death and injuries suffered by my clients and their families. The tragedy happened because of a long standing failure by the Ministry of Defence to provide technological equipment that would have enabled my clients and other British soldiers to recognise their colleagues during battle. These technologies were in fact available to other NATO troops during the Iraq war and my clients are entitled to ask why they were denied to British servicemen and women. To say that they are not entitled to ask this question as a result of a blanket combat immunity is a travesty of justice”.
Our clients’ claims comes at a time when the MoD is being accused of sending British soldiers to military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without essential equipment. Many servicemen and women have complained that they were not even provided basic kit such as GPS units, radio units and enhanced body armours, some having to resort to purchasing their own equipment.
Debi Allbutt, widow of Stephen Allbutt says "My husband, like many other soldiers was forced to buy his own Sat Nav system when he got deployed to Iraq. He was not given a GPS equipment to help with orientation in the battlefield, and felt it was essential that he bought one. The Army issues maps but they are not the same for everyone and are to different scales which makes orientation difficult. Stephen was proud of what he did and took it upon himself to take with him what he needed to enable him to do his job safely and effectively. The Americans had technology which our troops didn't. Why not? The MoD needs to be accountable to the families who have lost their loved ones and cannot hide behind old legal relics and the excuse of lack of resources".
For more information please contact partner, Shubhaa Srinivasan on 078 363 72145. Andy Julien can be contacted on 07876 564492 and Dan Twiddy can be contacted on 07985 668398.
Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.