header-logo header-logo

21 June 2006
Issue: 7278 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Human Rights Act applies to British troops abroad

British troops holding prisoners overseas are bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), the House of Lords has ruled, in a case being hailed as historic by civil rights campaigners.

In R (on the application of Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence—which arose from complaints against the UK about the deaths of six Iraqi civilians—the Law Lords ruled by a four to one majority that HRA 1998 applied overseas, including detention centres over which British troops had “effective control”.

The case was brought after Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist, died while in British custody in 2003. He was allegedly tortured for over 36 hours while detained by British troops in Basra. A post-mortem examination revealed 93 separate injuries on his body.

The Law Lords ruled that Mousa’s family is entitled to an independent, impartial and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. The government is likely to be forced to conduct an independent inquiry.

Although welcoming this aspect of the ruling, a spokesperson for Amnesty International says the group regrets that the Law Lords threw out the appeals of the other five Iraqis who were allegedly shot by British troops, ruling that HRA 1998 did not apply to their deaths.

Phil Shiner, the solicitor acting for Mousa’s family, called the ruling a “massive breakthrough” in his clients’ “efforts to secure accountability for deaths and torture in detention”. He now plans to go for “huge exemplary damages” for about 20 other Iraqi families with allegations of mistreatment by British soldiers.

Attorney General Lord Goldsmith says: “It is of the greatest importance that detainees in British custody are not mistreated by our armed forces in any way.”

Issue: 7278 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll