Morning:
8°c
The Ministry of Defence won a legal battle today that could lead to a cut in compensation paid to two injured servicemen.
The Court of Appeal partly upheld a challenge by the Government to awards made to Light Dragoon Anthony Duncan and Royal Marine Matthew McWilliams.
The soldiers' awards will have to be reassessed using a more restrictive interpretation of the law which appears almost certain to result in a reduction in the amounts they receive.
It is likely to lead to renewed public anger, following criticism this summer when the MoD began the challenge that it was penny pinching at the expense of war veterans.
Lord Justice Carnwarth today defended the Government's position and said a tribunal wrongly applied two elements of the formula which calculated the soldiers' awards.
"Although some adverse publicity accompanied the beginning of this case, related to its timing linked to tragic events in Afghanistan, the secretary of state was entirely justified in bringing the appeal, at least from a legal point of view," he said.
Cpl Duncan was given £9,250, which was increased to £46,000, and Marine McWilliams was awarded £8,250, which rose to £28,750. The 27-year-old corporal was shot in Iraq in 2005 and after two years of rehabilitation fought in Afghanistan for six months from April. Marine McWilliams, 24, fractured his thigh in training in 2005.
Ministers, who have begun a review of the compensation system, made the challenge because of concern that the cases could set a precedent which would cost taxpayers millions of pounds in extra payments.
Today's case centred on the interpretation of tables identifying categories of injuries and their seriousness - such as simple and complex fractures - and how subsequent complications might alter the category. It found two legal interpretations used by the tribunal to increase the awards were wrong. A new tribunal will reassess the soldiers' awards.
Reader views (5)
Wonderful isn't it, on the day we read a man wins 22k from the police for failing to move on when instructed to do so.
- Scott, London, 14/10/2009 09:30
Report abuse
1/ Get sent to the battle field by Labour
2/ Get seriously injured on the battle field because of Labour
3/ Get sued by Labour.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 13/10/2009 14:41
Report abuse
From the little information that is available, the awards were not cut, but brought back to their original level. One man, though wounded, was never the less able to return to full active duty which suggests a relatively minor wound, and the other broke his leg. These hardly qualify at the same level as the maimed and crippled coming back from the fighting. These two apparently are not amongst those who are unemployable in their chosen profession, or who have to restart their lives with a new reality as far as their physical abilities are concerned.
If there's more too this than presented, then certainly it is something that would need to be further addressed.
I was a career soldier and ALL military personnel have my unreserved sympathy as far as fair treatment is concerned - but it has to be realistic and proportionate too, otherwise "fairness" becomes an abstract and even notional.
- Rogan, Irving, 12/10/2009 18:26
Report abuse
Beyond belief is all I can say! When you think some of our disgusting parasite MPs are getting more in personal allowances and some individuals get more for racial slander. Just shows you the degree of loyalty the government has for 'real' British heroes.
- Nicky, aberdare,s.wales, 12/10/2009 15:44
Report abuse
Absolutely astounding that soldier's pay awards should be cut.
WHAT ABOUT ABOLISHING ALL MP's EXPENSES FOR A START, IF THE UK IS SO BANKRUPT IT NEEDS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE SOLDIERS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN A WAR OF WHICH NOBODY IN THE UK WAS CONSULTED ABOUT OR APPROVED OF?
- Reuben Camara, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR, 12/10/2009 15:34
Report abuse
