Smith v Ministry of Defence
[2013] UKSC 41
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
The UK's human rights obligations under Article 2 ECHR can apply to the deaths of soldiers in combat zones, though the operational context will be highly relevant to the assessment of what was required.
Facts
Several soldiers were killed or injured in Iraq due to inadequate equipment (Snatch Land Rovers) and alleged failures in training and procedures. Their families brought claims arguing the Ministry of Defence had breached its positive obligations under Article 2 ECHR.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court held that Article 2 could apply to soldiers on active service, rejecting the Government's argument that combat was entirely outside the scope of human rights law. However, the court emphasised that in assessing compliance with Article 2, significant allowance must be made for the operational and resource constraints inherent in military operations.
Key Quotes
"The guidance which I would draw from the Court’s jurisprudence in this area is that the court must avoid imposing positive obligations on the state in connection with the planning for and conduct of military operations in situations of armed conflict which are unrealistic or disproportionate. But it must give effect to those obligations where it would be reasonable to expect the individual to be afforded the protection of the article."
— Lord Hope at [76](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Led to extensive litigation regarding military equipment decisions.
Shaped the framework for subsequent inquests into military deaths.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help