Former British Army Leader Warns of Failing Troop Support

Lawfare and the Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act, based on the European Convention on Human Rights, is central to modern lawfare. Over the past two decades, legal challenges against military personnel have increased sharply.

One notorious example involved solicitor Phil Shiner. He fabricated evidence against soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was later convicted and struck off.

Retrospective cases and Northern Ireland

The HRA has been applied retrospectively to incidents from years earlier. Many cases relate to the Northern Ireland campaign and special forces operations against Isis.

Veterans have faced repeated calls and court actions without new evidence. Article 2, the absolute right to life, has been central to these vexatious claims.

Legislative developments

The 2023 Northern Ireland Legacy Act sought to draw a line under legacy cases. It halted fresh legal activity for soldiers, terrorists and victims alike and reaffirmed the Good Friday Agreement settlement.

The government has since introduced the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The bill is due to enter committee stage in the Commons shortly and, in its current form, would remove protections under the 2023 act.

Concerns for veterans

Ministers argue the Legacy Act’s conditional immunity clashes with the HRA. Critics reply that the bill will mainly affect veterans. Legal action against terrorists is unlikely, they say, because records do not exist to support prosecutions.

Amendments have been proposed to require independently certified new evidence before any case proceeds. Supporters say those amendments must be adopted to avoid renewed vexatious litigation.

International rulings and extraterritorial reach

The 2011 al‑Skeini judgment in Strasbourg expanded the Convention’s extraterritorial application. The European Court of Human Rights said British forces in Basra exercised authority and control over the local population.

That ruling widened the HRA’s reach. Soldiers on overseas operations became vulnerable to retrospective human rights claims.

Operational and legal friction

There is an unresolved tension between the Law of Armed Conflict and peacetime human rights law. Article 2 obligations often conflict with battlefield decision-making and rules of engagement.

Those contradictions produce legal and operational friction. Commanders and troops face uncertainty about how actions overseas will be judged at home.

Trust, recruitment and national security

Soldiers typically join expecting the state to protect them in later life. Repeated legal exposure erodes that contract of trust between soldier and state.

The former British Army leader warned that failing troop support could damage morale and readiness. He urged clearer legal protections to reassure serving personnel and veterans.

What ministers must consider

• Amend the Troubles Bill to protect veterans without shielding proven wrongdoing.
• Require new, independently certified evidence before reopening legacy cases.
• Clarify how human rights law should interact with the Law of Armed Conflict.

Filmogaz.com reports that lawfare is now seen as a national security issue. The debate will shape military confidence and future operations unless lawmakers act.