Iraqi shot by soldier receives £2m payout
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.An Iraqi man seriously injured when he was accidentally shot by a British soldier has been awarded £2m compensation by the Government in a move which could pave the way for similar claims.
The young man's case – the exact details of which remain sketchy for legal reasons – is "exceptional" because of its "severity", according to the Ministry of Defence.
The as-yet-unnamed victim was left paralysed with severe spinal injuries soon after the invasion of Iraq in September 2003 when a British soldier – one of a group he had befriended – accidentally dropped his gun and the weapon fired.
The Government accepted the shot in question was a "negligent discharge" when the Iraqi man moved to Britain after the incident to pursue his case in the courts here. The final settlement is still awaiting a further High Court hearing.
After the case was highlighted on Channel 4 News last night, a spokesman for the MoD said: "It is not a precedent – it is an exceptional case. It is not expected that there are any other cases of such severity."
However, the award, which is higher than any paid to Iraqis who made compensation claims against the British through their own courts, could set a precedent, according to some MPs.
The Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, said last night: "The Government claims that this is a completely unique case, but it is very difficult to believe that that is the case. If Iraqis were able to get access to British courts, they would clearly be entitled to much higher levels of compensation, based on this precedent."
The Government faced immediate criticism that the payout was also far higher than compensation issued to British troops injured in Iraq, fuelling the debate over the compensation levels for wounded service personnel.
This was dismissed by the MoD, which rejected comparisons with the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) for injured troops offering a maximum lump sum payment of £285,000. The MoD describes the AFCS as "a compensation scheme for all members of the regular and reserve forces. It provides compensation for all injuries, ill-health and deaths that are mainly due (attributable) to service, the main cause of which occurred on or after the introduction of the scheme on 6 April 2005."
The Royal British Legion and a number of senior military personnel have criticised the Government for allegedly failing to fulfil its duty of care to soldiers .
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments