header-logo header-logo

30 May 2013
Issue: 7562 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

“Mistreatment” under scrutiny

The High Court has ordered hundreds of inquest-style public hearings to investigate alleged unlawful killings and mistreatment of Iraqi civilians.

The hearings will look into nearly 200 allegedly unlawful killings and up to 800 cases of alleged torture and cruel inhuman treatment of Iraqi civilians.

Three years ago, the Secretary of State for Defence (SSD) established the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) to deal with all killings and torture cases involving UK personnel in Iraq. However, Iraqi claimants have since successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that IHAT was not sufficiently independent of the armed forces, and did not comply with a member state’s requirements under Arts 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Last week, in R (on the application of Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin), the High Court ruled that all death cases should now be subject to a public “inquisitorial process”, even in two cases where there had been an earlier decision not to prosecute, and that the IHAT inquiries did not discharge the state’s duty. It said it would maintain a supervisory role in all the torture and inhuman and degrading treatment cases.

The IHAT inquiries were not open to the public.

Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, who acted for the claimants, says: “[The court] has found that the Ministry of Defence have not complied with international and domestic law requiring there to be proper public scrutiny of these cases and the systemic issues arising from them.”

Issue: 7562 / Categories: Legal News
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