News
Military battle fought out in British court
First published in the Independent, 24 July 2008.
In the ordinary course of life, it would seem trite to emphasise that the law applies to us all – irrespective of our personal status and circumstances.
But employment law doesn’t always readily fit the circumstances of each and every employment situation.
Take sport, for example. While we accept the validity of employment law, we often have a conceptual difficulty with its application to professional sports people. Critics often advocate abandoning the law because of such overriding concepts as “pride in the jersey”.
The military presents another example of an employment situation that may not always necessarily fit easily with the concepts of employment law. An ongoing claim in the United Kingdom illustrates this point.
Major Rabia Siddique is a 37 year old officer in the English Army. In 2005 she was posted to Iraq in her role within the Army Legal Service.
In September 2005 she played a part in what has been referred to as an SAS hostage crisis. There was an undercover operation, undertaken by SAS personnel, which had been designed to identify a senior Iraqi policeman who was believed to be responsible for the murders and torture of dozens of civilians.
The SAS personnel, who were disguised as Arabs, had their cover blown when they were spotted by plain clothed Iraqi policemen. A short gun battle ensued, following which the pair were captured and taken to a notorious Iraqi police station.
Once military headquarters learned of this outcome, a team was swiftly mobilised – with the intention of attempting to negotiate the release of the SAS officers. That team was commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel James Woodham. Major Siddique was also sent to advise on the legal situation – and to deal with the Iraqi police chief on this subject.
There is little doubt that the operation was dangerous. Two other members of the team were SAS soldiers whose job it was to provide “close protection”.
Unfortunately, the negotiations failed – and there was a very real fear that one consequence might be that the members of the negotiation team might be taken as prisoners themselves.
As it happened, however, the negotiating team managed to escape the situation – and there followed a daring SAS operation (involving armoured vehicles smashing through the wall of the police station) which resulted in the rescue of the captive SAS soldiers.
Following the rescue, riots broke out in Basra – and a British serviceman was severely burned when his armoured vehicle was set on fire by protestors.
So how can an employment problem arise out of this dramatic military operation?
Woodham was awarded the Military Cross for the part that he played in the rescue. Siddique was, for her part, awarded a Queen’s Commendation for Valuable Service.
Siddique claims, however, that she did not receive the proper recognition for the part which she played. She says that after she returned to Britain, she was offered posts within the Army Legal Service which lacked prestige and which were “career limiting”. She blames some of the commanders in Iraq for damaging her career.
She is claiming £650,000 ($1.7 million) as compensation for the alleged loss of her career in a claim which she has filed in the English Employment Tribunal.
Many in the army are displeased by her actions. They point to the fact that those who served in Iraq and suffered horrific injuries are limited to a maximum compensation claim of £285,000 as compensation for their loss of enjoyment of life. Against this limitation, some have asked why it should be acceptable for Siddique to seek – let alone be awarded – more.
And, after all, while it is not expressly said, surely there is some resentment for the fact that she was not injured as many of her colleagues have been – yet she is seeking compensation for loss of her enjoyment of life.
Siddique’s claim is ongoing. She may, of course, fail.
But the real issue in the minds of many is whether a person in Siddique’s position should be allowed to raise a claim in the employment jurisdiction at all. Isn’t this a military matter, raised in an environment so sufficiently divorced from those which are intended to be addressed by way of the employment law, that it is simply unjust for an Employment Tribunal to be required to consider the claim?
Alternatively, of course, there is the view that the employment law should apply equally – to all those citizens who might be affected by it. Why should Siddique’s employment circumstances justify any different conclusion?
This is an intriguing proposition which will undoubtedly attract more attention as the case proceeds.
