Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Ministry of Defence
Ian Davidson MP raised two further questions
about the way in which we deal with Board of Inquiry reports.
The first related to the definition of "clear public interest"
when a decision is taken whether to publish a report; the second
to the provision of reports to next of kin. I am sorry not to
have responded earlier.
On the first point, Boards of Inquiry are set
up not only in high profile cases such as those involving loss
of life or serious injury, but in a wide variety of more mundane
circumstances, in many of which there is unlikely to be any interest
on the part of the public. Preparing a report in a suitable form
for publication consumes significant administrative effort. That
is why reports are not routinely published, but Mr Davidson can
be assured that the policy of publication where there is a clear
public interest is not used as a way of avoiding publication in
cases such as those which were discussed in the hearing where
concern has been expressed about the particular circumstances
of an incident subject to a Board of Inquiry.
As regards Mr Davidson's second question, next
of kin are, in all cases, routinely provided with copies of reports
without having to request them. Moreover, while the way in which
BOIs are handled varies slightly among the three Services, a common
theme is to ensure that families are kept closely informed of
the progress of BOIs. Care is also taken to ensure that, in cases
where there may be complex or technical issues involved, an offer
is made to the family for a qualified officer to be present when
the findings are issued, to explain these matters to them more
fully.
I am also conscious that during the hearing,
the Committee raised several questions that could not be answered
at the time and I undertook to write and provide greater detail.
The questions related to information we hold within the Ministry
of Defence on other nations' experiences of fratricide, as well
as the handling of the Boards of Inquiry into the 2003 fratricide
cases. I'm afraid that it is taking some time to validate some
of the information we hold on cases involving the United States,
and we are still not in a position to respond on that specific
point. I can, however, respond to the other questions raised.
As regards UK involvement in instances of fratricide
with nations other than the US, there are no known instances of
action by UK forces resulting in fratricide in the forces of friendly
nations. Nor are we aware that in the period since 1990, the forces
of any of the other major partner nations (eg Australia, Canada,
Germany, France and The Netherlands) were responsible for fratricide
as defined in the NAO report involving their own or other nation's
forces. On the issue of fratricide incidents resulting in civilian
casualties, military reporting of any kind of civilian casualties
is necessarily limited and incomplete and cannot provide a confident
basis for civilian casualty estimates, so no basis for comparison
exists. But there is certainly no record of any incidents involving
UK forces in Iraq since 2003 in which civilian fatalities occurred
as a result of the person concerned being mistaken for an enemy
combatant.
On Boards of Inquiry, I enclose an explanation
of the timescales for completing each of the investigations into
the four fratricide cases arising from Operation TELIC. As requested,
this information has been examined by the NAO, and they are content.
Bill Jeffrey CB
Permanent Secretary
27 July 2006
OPERATION TELIC
BOARDS OF
INQUIRY (BOI) INTO
FRATRICIDE—EXPLANATION
OF DELAY
| Ser |
BOI Name |
Significant Dates |
Reasons For Delay |
| 1 | Tornado ZG710 Patriot Shootdown
| Incident—22 March 2003
BOI Reports—30 January 2004
Report to MOD—01 March 2004
Report to NOK1[6]—2 May 2004
Report to HCL2[7]—May 2004
Report on Internet—May 2004
| The Inquiry was delayed considerably between May and August 2003 when the Board adjourned whilst awaiting the results of a QinetiQ report into the aircraft Indicator Friend or Foe (IFF) system.
Further delay, in parallel, resulted from the difficulty in obtaining the US Airborne Warning And Control System (AWACS) tapes in a format compatible with UK systems.
Whilst the US inquiry into the incident was completed in November 2003 a deliberate decision was taken not to rush the UK BOI to obtain concurrent release.
|
| 2 | Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank
(CR2)
| Incident—25 March 2003
BOI Reports—12 July 2005
Report to MOD—31 October 2005
Report to NOK—24 November 2005
Report to HCL—November 2005
Report on Internet—January 2006
| Since a Royal Military Policy (RMP) investigation was required a BOI was not convened until the police had completed their enquiries in May 2004 with the Board convening 17 May 2004 after the Army Prosecuting Authority (APA) had weighed the evidence.
An initial BOI report was complete by 23 July 2004 but the discovery of new evidence in November led to the General Officer Commanding 1st (UK) Armoured Division ordering the BOI to re-convene.
|
| | |
18 January 2005 The BOI concluded that a special technical investigation of the CR2 was required. This was completed in March 2005.
The Board then completed its inquiry 12 July 2005.
|
| 3 | A10/CVR(T) | Incident—28 March 2003
BOI Reports—27 May 2004
Report to MOD—01 July 2004
Report to NOK:
US report—17 February 2004
Family briefed—06 October 2004
Report released—19 September 2005
Report to HCL—November 2005
Report on Internet—January 2006
| 20 October 03 RMP report was forwarded to 1st (UK) Armoured Division. It was decided to delay the BOI until after US report was made available.
The US (classified SECRET) report arrived at the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) in December 2003. Delays to the briefing of NOK and final release of the report were caused by the need to discuss the classification of certain aspects with the Americans.
|
| 4 | Marine Maddison | Incident—30 March 2003
BOI Reports—4 December 2003
Report to MOD—5 February 2004
Report to NOK—27 January 2004
Report to HCL—February 2006
Report on Internet—February 2006
| A BOI was not convened until 27 October 2003 as the incident was originally thought, on the basis of an initial investigation by the SIB, to have been caused by enemy fire.
It was only after speculation in a BBC documentary on the war in Iraq, and in other media, that Mne Maddison had been killed by friendly fire that a second SIB investigation was commissioned. This concluded that Mne Maddison death had most likely been caused by friendly fire from a MILAN weapon.
A BOI was convened shortly after the outcome of the second SIB investigation was known.
The RN were not aware of the requirement to publish high profile BOI reports in the HCL and on the website until early 2006. Once the requirement was known, action was taken as soon as possible.
|
6
Next of Kin. Back
7
House of Commons Library. Back
|
