6th REPORT OF 2016–17: 'WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIANS? MoD SUPPORT FOR FORMER AND SERVING PERSONNEL' [1st DEFENCE SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT OF 2016–17] (HC 109)
Close IHAT this year and immediately dismiss remaining weak cases
Defence Committee Press Notice – 10 February 2017
The Report by the Defence Sub-Committee, published by the Defence Committee, gives its verdict on the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT).
IHAT's caseload should be handed over to police
The report concludes that IHAT has become a seemingly unstoppable self-perpetuating machine, deaf to the concerns of the armed forces, blind to their needs, and profligate with its own resources. It therefore recommends that IHAT's caseload is handed over to Service police, with the support of civilian police, as soon as possible.
Over 3,500 allegations of abuse were taken up by IHAT, many of which were not supported by credible evidence. The report found a range of failings in the conduct of the investigations into those claims alongside a MoD support package which was fragmented, inaccessible and largely unknown. The report concludes that because of this, those under investigation have suffered unacceptable stress, have had their lives put on hold and their careers damaged.
Bonds of trust eroded
The overall impact of this has been the erosion of the bonds of trust between those who serve, and their civilian masters.
The report supports the Government's commitment to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of future military operations abroad in order to stop unnecessary and damaging litigation. It also presents a set of principles which should be adhered to by any future inquiry into the conduct of the UK's armed forces on operations.
Johnny Mercer MP, Chairman of the Sub-Committee inquiry, said:
"Throughout this process there has been an almost total disregard of the welfare of soldiers and their families. We need to hold our people in the highest esteem and a repeat of IHAT must never be allowed to happen again.
"The MoD must take responsibility for allowing this to happen. They could have discriminated between credible and non-credible cases yet they lacked the will to do so. They need to get on and immediately dismiss those remaining cases that are based on obviously weak evidence."
[To read the full report, click here.]
[For this inquiry, the Chairman of the Defence Sub-Committee was Johnny Mercer MP. The members of the Sub-Committee were James Gray MP, Mrs Madeleine Moon MP and Rt Hon John Spellar MP. While the Report was published as the 6th Report of the Defence Committee, it was the work of the Sub-Committee and reflected their views. It was not amended by the Defence Committee.]
* * *
The UK’s military must be equally subject to the law as any civilian, whether in barracks or on operations. The UK military rightly demands that those who fall short of these standards should pay the full penalty for doing so. However, just as in civilian life, investigations into wrongdoing must be fair and be seen to be fair.
The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) was set up in 2010 to investigate allegations of abuse by Iraqi civilians against UK armed forces personnel that were said to have occurred between 2003 and 2009. It was expected, to take two years to complete its work. Exploited by two law firms in particular, IHAT’s caseload rose from 165 to over 3,000 over subsequent years. It is now expected to complete its work in 2019 and will cost the taxpayer nearly £60 million.
A large number of those claims were taken up by IHAT despite a lack of credible evidence and the investigations have taken years to complete. As a result, those under investigation have suffered unacceptable stress, have had their lives put on hold and their careers damaged. They have been, and in some cases continue to be, treated in an unacceptable manner as a result of serving the United Kingdom.
The catalogue of serious failings in the conduct of IHAT’s investigations points to a loss of control in its management. Service personnel and veterans have been contacted unannounced – sometimes years after service – despite assurances that this would not happen. Covert surveillance appears to have been used on serving and retired members of the armed forces. IHAT investigators have impersonated police officers in order to gain access to military establishments or threaten arrest. Investigations which had previously been closed down were re-opened on the back of dubious evidence.
Perhaps the most telling failure of IHAT is the absence of a single prosecution against the UK military. It has been an unmitigated failure for both ‘victims’ and military personnel alike. Of the total number of cases investigated by IHAT (more than 3,500), most have or will shortly be, dismissed. The Secretary of State for Defence told us that he hoped that the number would be reduced to 60 by summer 2017. Once the number of cases outstanding reaches that target, it is our view that IHAT must be closed down, with remaining cases passed to the service police, with support from civilian police.
Throughout this process there has been an almost total disregard of the welfare of current and former service personnel and their families. Soldiers have had to fund their own defence and have been left in the dark by a chain of command which has appeared to be unable or unwilling to interfere with the process.
IHAT has operated without any regard to its impact on the UK military which has directly harmed their reputation across the world, and negatively affected the way this country conducts military operations and defends itself.
The MoD must take its share of responsibility for this. Both the MoD and IHAT have focused too much on satisfying the accusers and too little on defending those under investigation. Ministers must take the lead in ensuring that this rectified.
The MoD is now reforming its package of support for servicemen and women. In October 2016, it announced that it would now cover the legal costs for all of those under investigation by IHAT. It has also started work on how the UK can derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights so that claims through the European Court of Human Rights cannot be made for future conflicts.
The manner in which the armed forces are investigated requires fundamental reform. The focus has been on satisfying perceived international obligations and outside bodies, with far too little regard for those who have fought under the UK’s flag. Our report contains a set of principles to which the MoD and any future investigatory body should adhere. The armed forces deserve to be held in the highest esteem and a repeat of IHAT must never be allowed to happen again.