Soldiers' families praise new rules as top brass warn of being 'hung out to dry'
Duty Holder Concept rules now cover all conflicts involving British forces
Senior officers will face courts-martial if safety warnings are ignored
But former colonel warns new rules will increase burdens on commanders
By MARK NICOL
PUBLISHED: 22:36 GMT, 5 April 2014 |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597881/Senior-officers-send-troops-deaths-using-faulty-kit-jailed-Soldiers-families-praise-new-rules-brass-warn-hung-dry.html
Senior Army officers, including generals, will be court-martialled and jailed if they send troops into battle with inadequate equipment, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Rules introduced last week mean that – for the first time in Army history – commanders will be held legally responsible for deaths in a war zone caused by faulty kit.
Last night, as troops’ families welcomed the move, top brass warned that combat operations could grind to a halt as officers fear being singled out for blame.
New rules: Royal Marines from Fire Support Troop, Charlie Company, 40 Commando, fire a Javelin missile as they attack a Taliban position on the frontline near Kajaki in Afghanistan's Helmand province
The Duty Holder Concept (DHC) regulations will cover all remaining British military operations in Afghanistan, which are scheduled to end in December, and any future conflicts involving UK Forces.
Their introduction follows huge public outcry over the hundreds of deaths linked to the use of shoddy equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, including faulty radios and vehicles lacking armoured protection.
The move also comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Government owes a duty of care to soldiers and that their families can sue the Ministry of Defence if equipment failures lead to deaths.
Under DHC, senior officers will face charges if safety warnings are ignored – without an operational imperative to do so.
The rules may also cover high-tech pieces of equipment, such as computers intended to protect helicopters from surface-to-air missiles, or if officers are found to have dismissed concerns raised by an armoured vehicle crew that – due to a mechanical fault – it was likely to tip over, trapping personnel inside.
The rules are being introduced to prevent senior officers escaping justice if they are considered to be responsible for soldiers’ deaths.
New era of accountability: Rules introduced last week mean that - for the first time in Army history - commanders will be held legally responsible for deaths in a war zone caused by faulty kit
It follows a review into the 2006 RAF Nimrod spy plane crash, in which 14 UK personnel were killed after a leaking fuel pipe caused a huge mid-air explosion over Afghanistan.
A Government-backed inquiry subsequently criticised two RAF officers for failing to highlight the risks caused by a refit of the aircraft’s engines and fuselage.
The investigation, led by Charles Haddon-Cave QC, accused Air Commodore George Baber of a ‘fundamental failure of leadership’ and singled out Wing Commander Michael Eagles for allegedly ‘failing to make safety his first priority’.
However, despite a probe by military police, neither man was brought before a court martial – a decision met with fury by the victims’ families. The relatives served a writ accusing the MoD of negligence, failing to minimise risk and a breach of the right to life. The MoD settled out of court.
Last night, Graham Knight, 62, whose 25-year-old son Ben was killed in the crash, said: ‘This is a good idea because it should be absolutely clear at every level of the chain of command who is responsible for addressing safety concerns and ensuring that risk is reduced to the lowest level, within the context of an operation.
‘In corporate life you can be held accountable, and I think that a system like this is long overdue across the Services.
‘We should also bear in mind, however, that this is coming into practice as our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. The system isn’t going to be backdated.
‘In the case of my son’s death, we needed a system like this eight years ago. Back then it was easier for officers to swerve accountability.
‘The Nimrod was unsafe to fly due to the design modifications. These issues should have been highlighted as part of the safety review.’
The new rules come after an probe by Charles Haddon-Cave QC singled out RAF officers for failing to highlight risks before a 2006 RAF Nimrod spy plane crash. Colonel Richard Kemp warned it would 'burden' commanders
But Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British Forces, warned that the DHC system would plague battlefield operations and hang officers out to dry.
‘Commanders making life or death decisions in combat are already under more pressure than most human beings could bear,’ he said. ‘They should not be subjected to increasing burdens of this sort which can only make their jobs harder and put lives at risk.
‘If every battlefield decision which results in loss of life is potentially dissected in the court room then commanders’ jobs will become impossible. And there will also be an effect on recruiting. How many people want to sign up to become scapegoats when things go wrong?’
Last night, a spokesman for the MoD said: ‘Defence is inherently a dangerous business and we are very clear that battlefield commanders must always be able to take calculated risks to achieve operational and mission success.
‘The MoD is like any other large organisation with a responsibility to its personnel and employees. We want to actively reduce preventable risks to life and injury, which is why procedures are in place covering military activity or the operation of military equipment wherever that takes place.’
FAILURES WHICH LED TO NIMROD CRASH 'WOULD BE COVERED UNDER DHC'
An RAF Nimrod MR2 spy plane, like the one which crashed in Afghanistan in 2006, killing 14 British servicemen. A report ruled that officers had failed to assess the risks and that 'key dangers' went unnoticed
The historic ruling has come about as a result of the Nimrod air crash, which cost the lives of 14 personnel on a secret mission to intercept Taliban radio transmissions in Afghanistan.
Defence sources say that, had the Duty Holder Concept (DHC) been in place then, senior officers allegedly to blame for the tragedy would have been brought before a court martial.
The 2006 crash – caused when leaking fuel made contact with a hot air pipe after air-to-air refuelling – saw the plane break up in mid-air as the crew tried to make it back to Kandahar Airport. There were no survivors.
The tragedy was the biggest single loss of life suffered by British Forces since the Falklands. A report later ruled that senior officers had failed to assess the risks posed by the lay-out of pipes inside the Nimrod, that ‘key dangers’ had gone unnoticed and that the Ministry of Defence’s internal safety review, conducted before the tragedy happened was 'lamentable'
Grieving relatives were also told that senior officers refused to answer questions put by military police and could not be held to account due to their seniority.
The DHC, introduced by the Army last week, would come into effect in scenarios such as commanders ignoring safety warnings set down for the use of the powerful Javelin missile.
In Afghanistan the heat-seeking rocket has been known to veer off course, endangering troops. Safety experts have tightened the guidelines over its use.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597881/Senior-officers-send-troops-deaths-using-faulty-kit-jailed-Soldiers-families-praise-new-rules-brass-warn-hung-dry.html#ixzz2yXKa6irc
Senior officers will face courts-martial if safety warnings are ignored
But former colonel warns new rules will increase burdens on commanders
By MARK NICOL
PUBLISHED: 22:36 GMT, 5 April 2014 |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597881/Senior-officers-send-troops-deaths-using-faulty-kit-jailed-Soldiers-families-praise-new-rules-brass-warn-hung-dry.html
Senior Army officers, including generals, will be court-martialled and jailed if they send troops into battle with inadequate equipment, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Rules introduced last week mean that – for the first time in Army history – commanders will be held legally responsible for deaths in a war zone caused by faulty kit.Last night, as troops’ families welcomed the move, top brass warned that combat operations could grind to a halt as officers fear being singled out for blame.
New rules: Royal Marines from Fire Support Troop, Charlie Company, 40 Commando, fire a Javelin missile as they attack a Taliban position on the frontline near Kajaki in Afghanistan's Helmand province
The Duty Holder Concept (DHC) regulations will cover all remaining British military operations in Afghanistan, which are scheduled to end in December, and any future conflicts involving UK Forces.
Their introduction follows huge public outcry over the hundreds of deaths linked to the use of shoddy equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, including faulty radios and vehicles lacking armoured protection.
The move also comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Government owes a duty of care to soldiers and that their families can sue the Ministry of Defence if equipment failures lead to deaths.
Under DHC, senior officers will face charges if safety warnings are ignored – without an operational imperative to do so.
The rules may also cover high-tech pieces of equipment, such as computers intended to protect helicopters from surface-to-air missiles, or if officers are found to have dismissed concerns raised by an armoured vehicle crew that – due to a mechanical fault – it was likely to tip over, trapping personnel inside.
The rules are being introduced to prevent senior officers escaping justice if they are considered to be responsible for soldiers’ deaths.
New era of accountability: Rules introduced last week mean that - for the first time in Army history - commanders will be held legally responsible for deaths in a war zone caused by faulty kit
It follows a review into the 2006 RAF Nimrod spy plane crash, in which 14 UK personnel were killed after a leaking fuel pipe caused a huge mid-air explosion over Afghanistan.
A Government-backed inquiry subsequently criticised two RAF officers for failing to highlight the risks caused by a refit of the aircraft’s engines and fuselage.
The investigation, led by Charles Haddon-Cave QC, accused Air Commodore George Baber of a ‘fundamental failure of leadership’ and singled out Wing Commander Michael Eagles for allegedly ‘failing to make safety his first priority’.
However, despite a probe by military police, neither man was brought before a court martial – a decision met with fury by the victims’ families. The relatives served a writ accusing the MoD of negligence, failing to minimise risk and a breach of the right to life. The MoD settled out of court.
Last night, Graham Knight, 62, whose 25-year-old son Ben was killed in the crash, said: ‘This is a good idea because it should be absolutely clear at every level of the chain of command who is responsible for addressing safety concerns and ensuring that risk is reduced to the lowest level, within the context of an operation.
‘In corporate life you can be held accountable, and I think that a system like this is long overdue across the Services.
‘We should also bear in mind, however, that this is coming into practice as our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. The system isn’t going to be backdated.
‘In the case of my son’s death, we needed a system like this eight years ago. Back then it was easier for officers to swerve accountability.
‘The Nimrod was unsafe to fly due to the design modifications. These issues should have been highlighted as part of the safety review.’
The new rules come after an probe by Charles Haddon-Cave QC singled out RAF officers for failing to highlight risks before a 2006 RAF Nimrod spy plane crash. Colonel Richard Kemp warned it would 'burden' commanders
But Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British Forces, warned that the DHC system would plague battlefield operations and hang officers out to dry.
‘Commanders making life or death decisions in combat are already under more pressure than most human beings could bear,’ he said. ‘They should not be subjected to increasing burdens of this sort which can only make their jobs harder and put lives at risk.
‘If every battlefield decision which results in loss of life is potentially dissected in the court room then commanders’ jobs will become impossible. And there will also be an effect on recruiting. How many people want to sign up to become scapegoats when things go wrong?’
Last night, a spokesman for the MoD said: ‘Defence is inherently a dangerous business and we are very clear that battlefield commanders must always be able to take calculated risks to achieve operational and mission success.
‘The MoD is like any other large organisation with a responsibility to its personnel and employees. We want to actively reduce preventable risks to life and injury, which is why procedures are in place covering military activity or the operation of military equipment wherever that takes place.’
FAILURES WHICH LED TO NIMROD CRASH 'WOULD BE COVERED UNDER DHC'
An RAF Nimrod MR2 spy plane, like the one which crashed in Afghanistan in 2006, killing 14 British servicemen. A report ruled that officers had failed to assess the risks and that 'key dangers' went unnoticed
The historic ruling has come about as a result of the Nimrod air crash, which cost the lives of 14 personnel on a secret mission to intercept Taliban radio transmissions in Afghanistan.
Defence sources say that, had the Duty Holder Concept (DHC) been in place then, senior officers allegedly to blame for the tragedy would have been brought before a court martial.
The 2006 crash – caused when leaking fuel made contact with a hot air pipe after air-to-air refuelling – saw the plane break up in mid-air as the crew tried to make it back to Kandahar Airport. There were no survivors.
The tragedy was the biggest single loss of life suffered by British Forces since the Falklands. A report later ruled that senior officers had failed to assess the risks posed by the lay-out of pipes inside the Nimrod, that ‘key dangers’ had gone unnoticed and that the Ministry of Defence’s internal safety review, conducted before the tragedy happened was 'lamentable'
Grieving relatives were also told that senior officers refused to answer questions put by military police and could not be held to account due to their seniority.
The DHC, introduced by the Army last week, would come into effect in scenarios such as commanders ignoring safety warnings set down for the use of the powerful Javelin missile.
In Afghanistan the heat-seeking rocket has been known to veer off course, endangering troops. Safety experts have tightened the guidelines over its use.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597881/Senior-officers-send-troops-deaths-using-faulty-kit-jailed-Soldiers-families-praise-new-rules-brass-warn-hung-dry.html#ixzz2yXKa6irc
No comments:
Post a Comment