families of iraqis shot dead on the battlefield by british soldiers could sue the ministry of defence for human rights violations after a high court ruling a judgment stated that cases in which an iraqi was either shot dead or wounded fall within the jurisdiction of the european court of human rights act the landmark ruling could lead to over 1,200 claims, represented by phil shiner’s controversial public interest lawyers (pil), being investigated in uk courts the families of iraqi soldiers killed by british troops could sue the ministry of defence for human rights violations after a high court ruling  last night the ministry of defence said they were ‘concerned’ the court had taken such ‘an expansive view of the echr jurisdiction’ and would take the case to the appeals court they also said it would likely encourage ‘large numbers of opportunistic’ claims which would have to be investigated at heavy costs to the taxpayer colonel richard kemp, former commander of british forces in afghanistan, said the judgment was ‘absurd’ he said: ‘the prospect that every time british troops shoot or shell an enemy in battle they can be put before a court is beyond parody and utterly preposterous ‘how on earth are our troops expected to attack the enemy or to defend themselves knowing that every shot they fire could land them in court ‘there are two winners in this judgment   our country’s enemies and the ambulance chasing lawyers who will now be rubbing their hands together at the prospect of pocketing even more millions of pounds of taxpayer’s hard earned cash’ colonel tim collins, whose eve of battle speech inspired the nation before the iraq war, added: ‘i believe that these very lawyers have serious questions to answer about the abuse of the uk’s willingness to investigate such claims for personal gain and to that effect their credibility and motivation must be questioned’ colonel tim collins, former commanding officer of the 1st battalion, royal irish regiment, (centre) said the lawyers that have put forward the ruling have 'serious questions to answer' under the echr, the state has a duty to investigate allegations of wrongdoing to what extent the convention applies to the activities of british armed forces in iraq was previously not clear and has resulted in extensive legal debate the secretary of state accepted that anyone who was taken into the custody of british forces in iraq had certain rights under the convention colonel richard kemp (pictured), former commander of british forces in afghanistan, said the judgment was ‘absurd’ claimants however argued article 1 of the echr, the obligation to respect human rights, should also be applied to those shot on the battlefield but the ministry of defence refused to accept that individuals who were killed during security operations carried out by british forces in iraq were ‘within the uk’s jurisdiction’ on monday, mr justice leggatt, who is the judge designated to deal with the cases on behalf of the iraqis, ruled article 1 applied to ‘those test cases where the individual was shot by a british soldier’ firstly, ‘because such shootings occurred in the course of security operations in which british forces were exercising public powers that would normally be exercised by the government of iraq’ secondly, ‘because shooting someone involves the exercise of physical power over that person’ he said article 1 did not apply in cases where british military vehicles were involved in road traffic collisions he did however state that in circumstances where a soldier killed someone during an armed conflict, the killing would be deemed legal, provided it was consistent with international humanitarian law in those cases the family members would be unable to claim compensation from the uk pil represent the majority of the claimants and they told the courts they expected the number of claims by the end of march 2015 to reach at least 1,230 the legal aid funded firm was criticised last year after the al sweady inquiry demolished its claims that soldiers tortured iraqi detainees in may 2004 their claimants have been seeking orders from the court to require the secretary of state for defence to investigate alleged human rights violations pil said in a statement: ‘he (justice legatt) has ruled that in respect of all the 1,200 plus judicial review cases he is dealing with, all of the following stations are within the jurisdiction of the echr’ a judgment stated that cases in which an iraqi was either shot dead or wounded fall within the jurisdiction of the european court of human rights act (pictured the echr building in strasbourg, france) an mod spokesman said: ‘while the court has rejected all but one of public interest lawyers’ attempts to expand our investigative obligations, we are concerned that it has taken such an expansive view of echr jurisdiction ‘the judgment does not require any change to conduct of uk military operations but it is likely to encourage large numbers of opportunistic claims which must be investigated and litigated at heavy cost to taxpayers ‘we will therefore be seeking leave to appeal the jurisdiction issues to the court of appeal’ a pil spokesman said: ‘this is a very important judgment clarifying the application of the echr not just to iraq personnel in iraq but for future international peacekeeping operations and situations of armed conflict involving the uk ‘it is very likely that this important question of legal principle will be appealed by the uk government and heard by the supreme court’
iraqi uk ministry of defence richard kemp echr
judgment stated that cases where iraqi was shot or wounded are included . ruling could lead to over 1,200 claims being investigated in uk courts . ministry of defence is 'concerned' and will take the case to appeals court . colonel richard kemp, former commander, said judgement was 'absurd'. under the echr, state has a duty to investigate allegations of wrongdoing 