R (Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defence

The UK Government’s Secretary of State for Defence yesterday conceded in High Court proceedings that there must be an investigation into whether UK soldiers murdered a number of Iraqis in a detention facility in SE Iraq on 14/15 May 2004, and tortured another 9 survivors. The concession has been made in the midst of an ongoing judicial review hearing which commenced on 22 April 2009 but which has been forced to adjourn on a number of occasions due to the Government’s failure to disclose, until the very last minute, highly relevant and damaging information regarding the incident. These revelations have continued to emerge this week, bringing about the Government’s historic concession. Whilst details cannot be given in this press release the implications of these revelations concern those at the very highest levels of the military, civil service and in government at the time and since.

On 14 May 2004 there was a major firefight at a permanent vehicle checkpoint known as “Danny Boy” on Route 6 (the road between Baghdad and Al-Amara) in Maysan Province, South East Iraq. It was the UK Government’s case that following this battle, 20 dead Iraqis were taken to a UK military facility known as Camp Abu Naji (CAN) and another 9 Iraqis were captured and taken to the same facility. What is beyond question is that the UK soldiers returned 20 dead Iraqis in body bags to the Iraqi authorities the following day.
At the time of the incident many Iraqi families demonstrated in public as they believed that their relatives had been taken alive to CAN and murdered. Many Iraqi eye witnesses reported that they had witnessed many more than 9 Iraqis being taken away by UK soldiers. When the bodies were returned from CAN the next day many Iraqi medical workers, doctors, parents, brothers, wives and others saw the injuries to their relatives and immediately launched complaints in the Iraqi courts. The allegations were reported in the British press within days.
The UK government, aware of the allegations, of the unprecedented ferocity of the battle, and of the clear signs of mistreatment on the 9 survivors (which were the subject of representations by the International Committee of the Red Cross within a week), fundamentally failed to investigate the allegations. Instead, the Royal Military Police’s investigation carried out in 2004-05 was initially blocked by the chain of command, narrowly circumscribed its terms of reference and failed to consider elemental issues such as interviewing the survivors about the allegations or their mistreatment, failing to seek any forensic evidence, failing to interview many of the soldiers who guarded the men at CAN (some of whom were armed) or those responsible for their ‘tactical questioning’ and failing to follow up both Iraqi and UK witness and documentary evidence that a far larger number of prisoners than 9 were transported to CAN. The list goes on. A re-opening of the inquiry in 2007 failed to remedy these deficiencies, instead resulting in severe criticisms by the Greater Manchester Police’s peer review of late-2008.
The judicial review proceedings were commenced in October 2007, on behalf of the surviving detainees and a relative of one of the 20 dead men returned from CAN. The full hearing before a three judge Divisional Court commenced on 22 April 2009, but it has been forced to adjourn on a number of occasions due to consistently delayed and inadequately explained disclosure of key evidence, which continues to emerge. The Secretary of State for Defence has become mired in serious questions of candour with the Court and of clear criticisms of the way in which the investigation has been carried out and its representation to the Court. On 15 May 2009 the Treasury Solicitor and the Forces Provost Marshall appeared in person as witnesses at the request of the Court, to seek to explain this state of affairs. On the evening of 3 July 2009 the Government indicated that it was prepared to concede the key question in the hearing – that all aspects of the incident merit a comprehensive and independent inquiry.