Philippe Naughton
Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall

The Government suffered its second important legal defeat in 24 hours today when a High Court judge rejected an attempt by Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, to ban coroners using phrases such as "serious failure" in their verdicts on dead soldiers.
In a groundbreaking decision that could have important implications for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Justice Collins also ruled that sending soldiers out on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could amount to a breach of their human rights.
The Defence Secretary had complained that phrases such as "serious failures" or "serious failings" in verdicts on soldiers who have died on active service implied criticism of the Ministry of Defence and its agents.
MoD lawyers had argued that such language was tantamount to blaming the Government for the deaths of service personnel, potentially helping soldiers' families if they sued for compensation. The hearing had been seen as a test case for how much freedom coroners enjoyed in criticising the Government.
In the same judgment, the judge said that in such cases families should be entitled to legal aid and as full access as possible to military documents put before inquest hearings.
MoD lawyers had argued that it was “impossible to afford to soldiers who were on active service outside their bases the benefits of the Human Rights Act”. But Mr Justice Collins ruled that British servicemen and women were entitled to some measure of legal protection “wherever they may be” — possibly right on to the battlefield.
The decision was handed down as Gordon Brown came under pressure to reopen an inquiry into a £43 billion BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia after the High Court ruled that the Serious Fraud Office acted unlawfully by dropping the inquiry into the al-Yamamah deal.
Yesterday's High Court ruling said that the decision by ministers and the SFO to halt the investigation into alleged corruption in the deal was unlawful, an "abject surrender" and a threat to the reputation of British justice.
The ruling prompted calls for a full public inquiry and the reopening of the investigation. The SFO, which is now under pressure to review its decision, said last night that it was “carefully considering the implications of the judgment and the way forward”.
Today's rejection of Mr Brown's attempt to "gag" the coroners will be welcomed by soldiers' families.
Lawyers for the Defence Secretary went to the High Court to challenge comments made by a coroner in Oxfordshire after an inquest of a Territorial Army soldier in Iraq. Private Jason Smith, 32, died of heatstroke in 2003.
Andrew Walker, the assistant deputy coroner of Oxfordshire, recorded at his inquest in November 2006 that Private Smith’s death was caused “by a serious failure to recognise and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate”.
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles


Overseas contacts and local business information

A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests

Dubrovnik, the Dalmatian Coast and Montenegro

£129,500
Bentley Edinburgh
£79,850
Mercedes-Benz of Northampton
£26,995
Unit 1, Woodfield Business Unit, Kidderminster Road, Ombersley, Worcester.
Great car insurance deals online
90k + Bonus + Options
Confidential
London
£23,716 +
Highways Agency
National
£
£43,405 - £48,228 pa
Notting Hill Housing
London
£30,000 base, £100,000 OTE
Riches Consulting
London/South
with annexe accommodation and 5.25 acres
£1,100,000
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Reply to Anna from London -
The "exigencies and the institution of war" are exactly what we should be looking to the courts to prevent, and if that's not possible then preventing the government from fighting an illegal war on the cheap by sending ill-equipped soldiers to the front as cannon fodder is an acceptable second.
For the judge to have found a violation of the right to life, there must have been overwhelming evidence showing that troops were unprepared even by the most basic standards; parachutes which fail to open and a failure to supply radios - almost Dad's Army-esque, were it not so tragic.
Patrick, Luxemburg, EU
Penny pinching by the MOD is rife they congratulate them selves on making savings by having fewer parts to repair avilable, they just do not understand whats really going on out there..........
Kat, Northants,
This judgment raises a very interesting debate between the need to protect British citizens' right to life and the exigencies and institution of war. Yes its crucial that British troops receive the best equipment that can reasonably be expected to be provided, but (and I'm really not playing devil's advocate here, just raising an interesting point) how is it possible to protect one's right to life at all when our service men and women are put in harms way on a daily basis? On a very strict interpretation, it could be argued that the institution of war itself is incompatible with human rights; but this is obviously not practical in the world we live in. It would be interesting if future courts engage in this discussion and weigh these arguments and positions up.
Anna, London, UK
So the government believes that illegal immigrants who commit crimes deserve human rights but the soldiers who fight for this country do not. ???
Jack, Chelmsford, Essex
It is one of the hallmarks that describe a democracy - that the judicial system should enjoy independence from politicians.
Time and time again these Ministers try to change the rules of law.
It is time these arogant ministers were made to pay the legal costs out of their own pay and not waste OUR money on these futile legal challenges.
David Nammory, Liverpool,
When I worked in the Arabian Gulf in the Mercahant Navy some people who had flown out to join the ship and work in the Gulf could not adjust to the climate and were sent home after a doctor had looked at them this was quite normal.
BillMelsom, Salisbury, Wils
With the money this so called Government is spending on these ill conceived legal actions, legal aid and state handouts for illegal immigrants, terrorists any other lazy sod in this country they could have provided our (and I mean our not their) armed forces with the proper equipment. It is time the general public let this corrupt and inept bunch of MPâs (from all parties) know that enough is enough. This is also not a question of human rights but morality, sending our troops into combat zones without the right equipment is immoral and that sums up this entire government in a word.
Rob, Northampton, UK
Why isn't the MOD trying to protect and cement the rights of its soldiers? How can it be brash enough to defend (loudly and in the public eye) sending boys in without the correct equipment?
josh, london,
To Kerry Livermore,
I think your missing the point. The government brought in all these rules about 'human rights' and how it would be the party to get rid of sleaze, and now they are trying to ignore their own rules when it suits them. Well, the government cant have it both ways, it wants to make the laws, and to break the laws, and then to hide behind the laws in a sleazy way.
This is not the judge's decision, it's the rules the government put in place, not the judges.
Arthur, Newcastle,
If Justice Collins had his way a health and safety officer would have to do a risk assessment on all situations, even ambushes, before British troops could return fire. Collins seems to be hiding behind the wig and robes to promote his Liberty agenda.
kerry livermore, London, England
Good for the High Court. People will not , and should not, be kept quiet by this rotten Government.
Neil, Gloucestershire, England
Isn't this perversing the course of justice by the MOB, sorry MOD!
Bob, Warrington, Cheshire
"If something needs to be said, Iâll say it.â
Good for them, and us!
Gerard, Meppershall, Beds