Of course, all front-line combat and emergency services personnel should have the right equipment, but this ruling will open the floodgates for compensation claims and the losers for government incompetence (local and national) will be, once more, the luckless taxpayer and the big winners will be the greedy ambulance-chasing lawyers.
We have descended down the same litigious route as the USA and are slowly becoming debilitated by the shear weight of daft restrictive legislation.

Oxford Don, Oxford, UK

MoD tests chemicals on soldiers then denies doing it then gets caught doing it then denies them compensation. MoD misleads on statistics showing actual numbers of soldiers seriously injured in war. MoD dumps seriously disabled war veterans on the desease ridden and over-stretched NHS. MoD opposes giving Ghurkas rights to decent pensions and treatment in UK but UK government permits feckless, western hating fuindamentalists access to UK and provides social benefits. MoD spends £billions on 'consultants' but won't put armour or fire suppressants in transport planes. MoD pays senior civil servants bonuses while soldiers die because of lack of body armour which is lying in warehouses in UK because no-one thought to send them on. MoD issues soldiers with rifles so useless that Heckler and Koch have to be brought in to make modifications so that the things work in combat conditions. MoD sends Ministers out to lie in public to cover up MoD ineptitude.

ian, nottingham,

Sending troops out without adequate protection is tantamount to murder and should be treated as such.

Well done the judges!

Patricia, Ipswich, England

The jurisdiction issue raised by one commentator doesn't apply since all UK troops operate under UK military laws and jurisdiction is, therefore, automatic.

Des Browne's comment about improvements since 2003 just goes to prove why the judges had to act. Governments have continually sent troops into battle insufficient or inadequate equipment. As far as politicians are concerned service personnel have already accepted those risks by joining up in the first place.
Whatever the outcome for past cases, this judgement means that, at the least, the government will now have to prove they have made best efforts to properly equip our personnel before they are committed to battle instead of trying to fight a war with the weapons and tactics of the last war.

And as for bashing government legislation (Michael C of London) maybe they should get that right before enacting it. Bad law deserves its own consequences.

KR, Stockport,

"Andrew and Tim (by your own admission) clearly have their own agendas. There nothing a posh officer likes more than barking orders at the common squaddies without accountability."

Ben, London, UK

What a ridiculous and unfounded statement. I served as a non commisioned soldier for 6 years, and still have ex colleagues and a brother serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bond formed between commisioned officers and their soldiers is never stronger than when on war fighting operations, no one I know serving shares your opinion, and it seems that the serving soldiers posting here also disagree with you.

Russ, Watford,

So they think this ruling isn't retrospective! They clearly don't understand how the law works, they will.

Stephen, St. Ives, England

At last the Human Rights legislation is being used in a constructive manner to force this government to be honest for once. Geoff Hoon, Des Browne & the MoD had/have a duty of care towards the troops but we've seen many examples of them deliberately ignoring equipment failings & shortages and knowingly putting young men at undue risk . Arrogance & pin culminating with Des Brownes callous attempt to gag the coroner was the governments only response. The primary differance between earlier conflicts and Labours crusade is their deliberate obfuscation and spin over reality and theres every justifiable reason for families to sue the government over their disregard over known issues and problems that have caused death of their family members. In spite of the very dangerous arena these young men were placed into, their deaths were preventable had government acted properly and this is the real issue at stake. Only by suing the government over this will it curtail any future similar episodes.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

Does anyone know where the judgment is? In Al Skeini, a case decided last year, the House of Lords held that the Human Rights Act would only apply where the UK had "jurisdiction." So I don't see how the UK could have 'jurisdiction' over a battlefield in Iraq.

As to reliance on the European Convention on Human Rights, the Lords in Al Skeini made clear that the Convention only applies on the territory of contracting states, which Iraq obviously isn't.

So does anyone know how this case was decided?

Misha, Cambridge,

Ben of London said.."Andrew and Tim (by your own admission) clearly have their own agendas. There nothing a posh officer likes more than barking orders at the common squaddies without accountability........etc." Well, I spent over 30 years as an officer in the Armed Forces and this doesn't wash. Yes, a few officers are 'posh' whilst others were sons of (ex) coal-miners and grew up on a council estate. The overwhelming majority are very well educated young people trying to do their best with limited resources. There are a tiny number of army regiments whose officers may fit your description, but not the majority. No officer I ever served with would willingly send his men into harms way with defective kit, but when th eorders are given, there is no chioce but to crack on. There is however a problem with 'Yes men' at the very top in the Forces who will never say "No" to a political directive mainly because of the 'Can do' attitude within the Forces. To do so would of course be suicide.

Colin, Sarlat, France

Of course it is not possible to have the full scale of kit issue in theatre at the start of a conflict, or when quick reaction forces are deployed. What is unforgiveable is that the scales have not been achieved after in some cases years of conflict, we see shortages, units (and worse training establishments) being cannabalized. But worse than any kit shortages are the low manning levels, modern politicians obviously take no stock of history, war on the cheap has never worked and never will, modern technology is a great addition to the battlefield, but we all know the principals of battle have not changed. I am thankful that my service was in more enlightened times. There has also been a less than impressive run of general officers' in recent years .

Alex , Winchester , UK

Finally, our armed forces are being treated like equal citizens rather than expendable cannon fodder.

Andrew and Tim (by your own admission) clearly have their own agendas. There nothing a posh officer likes more than barking orders at the common squaddies without accountability. If a soldier is injured or dies because of your incompetence or because you wanted to cut costs then you and your failed chain of command will be now be held responsible! No wonder you feel uncomfortable.

Finally, the MOD and the goverment is being dragged into the 21st century through the hard work of ordinary people fighting for their rights.

Ben, London, UK

As a serving soldier who has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and is heading back again to Helmand shortly, I am well aware of the risks that my job entails. I am also well aware that the military is one of the few places left in the UK where the ideals of personal responsibility and selfless sacrifice are still something that sets us apart and allows us to do what we do in the most dangerous of circumstances. At the end of the day, we in the military are all volunteers and if we feel at a personal level the risk outweighs the reward then we can leave.

As for my human rights being infringed; they are everyday by the conjecture of armchair generals and ill-informed speculations of the media and now the ridiculous machinations of the legal community.

Andrew, London,

This is completely and utterly unworkable- I cannot beleive how simplistic some of you seem to think this it- think about it for a second:

MOD buys weapons and suchlike that I will call "stuff", troops have to be trained to use stuff, some of which is very complex. Stuff has to be transported to warzones. By time stuff gets used, it has been bashed around (simple nature of cheapest way to get it to places), and then troops who have been trained (poss some time ago) now have to try & use stuff in the heat of battle.

There are so many unknown variables that could affect the quality of stuff by the time it gets to the front line that there's no way anyone could guarantee the integrity of equipment by then.

Moreover, if stuff hasn't arrived, this ruling implies that if a base was under fire, we'd have to "all stop" until it did, or the MOD risks liability.

Unworkable, unreasonable, unrealistic.

I am biased by the way, I am an Army Captain. Didn't expect this opinion did you

Tim, Bristol,

Finally, the soldiers will not have to buy their own costly equipment as the government should provide them with what they need for once. This has happened for the good of the army and the families of the hard working troops.

However, the Human Rights Act has messed up more than it has helped. It needs to be re-written.

Ross Hetherington, Redditch, England

Put Labour on the front line and watch the kit improve even more. British military kit for the foot soldier has always been poor so much so that the guys in the field went out a bought their own kit including bergans, sleeping bags, waterproofs and boots. Labour have been winding down our miltary capability and wasting money on places such as Africa. Africa will never spring to our defence.

steve tea, manchester, cheshire

Well done to the judges.

Now all they have to do is make the Government treat the retired Gurkhas with respect for all their service and give them the right to live in UK, rather than deporting them like illegal immigrants.

Pete Smith, London, UK

At last the rule of law is coming home to roost in that no longer can the Government get away with bending or breaking the law to suit their circumstances and any Government official who trys to infringe the law (unless of real national security) should be prosecuted under the law as no Minister or other (apart from the Queen) is above the law, be it any idividual or group of individuals from the MOD, the Atourney General,the Prime Minister or anybody else who trys to hide behind or manipulate the law to their advantage for a Society to function
in a civilised Society all people have a moral and legal responsability to abide by the law and this should eqally apply to all those Governmant Departments as well as the rest of us.

If the MOD sent out troops without adaquat protection to protect those troops in combat anywhere around the World then the Government is liable Morally and legally as they directly put the lives of troops at risk BEFORE they went into combat.

Ray Newman, Bristol, UK

Our services deserve equipment that works and professional leaders that have proper training. Her Majesty's Government should fear the retribution of mothers whose dead children have died because of its incompetence and poor judgement.

Bob, Douglas, Isle of Man

the human rights nonsense is biting the hand that introduced it , we wont be able to send troops into battle now !! perhaps this dying goverment will now kick it out !!

taylor, herts,

I recommend that Des Brown goes over to Iraq with a defective gun, defective body armour and defective transport and see if there is anything to worry about. God forbid if he got injured and had to join the que for his GP or join the waiting list for Hospital treatment or would he expect Private treatment.

Michael Williams, Southampton, England

If British soldiers are subject to the ICC and those they encounter are covered by the Human Rights Act, then it is only reasonable for Government to be accountable to those it makes 'man in the middle'.

It is the Blair-Brown Government which created this situation. If British military personnel and going to be imperilled by wilful disregard of their safety and security then it is time Ministers were gaoled for criminal negligence and that proper funding and equipping takes place.

I do not welcome the ruling except as a counterbalance to the ICC and use of the HRA against British troops

CCTV, Nottingham, England

I was out in the Gulf in 2003 and was disgusted by the lack of necessary protective equipment. Not only was there a shortage of body armour but there was aslo a shortage of various pieces of NBC (nuclear, biologaical and chemical) protective clothing. Bearing in mind that Saddam Hussein was alleged to possed chemical weapons at that time, the latter was a big worry for those personnel without full NBC kit.

Another point - why do they have to use Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Right to cover such problems? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to extend Health and Safety at work legislation were employers are required to provide any necessary safety equipment?

Russ B, Newcastle, UK

Whilst I don't agree with sending troops into harms way with defective equipment - reminding readers that this case relates to 2003 - something that has been remedied since then.

What's next, police in full riot gear before they go on patrol or fight fighters not going into burning buildings to save lives?

The Human Rights Act has been used continuosly by the judiary to bash Government Legislation - we can't deport terrorist or illegal immigrants because of section 2 of the Act. I bet the pascafist are whooping for joy at this ruling.

It's time this Act was amneded or scrapped altogether.

Michael C, London, UK