Wounded Iraqi is given £2m payout

An Iraqi teenager accidentally shot by a British soldier is to receive £2m, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

The man - who cannot be named for legal reasons - will receive the payout after suffering severe spinal injuries which have left him paralysed.

The compensation is higher than anything paid to any British troops injured in Iraq.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the payout was "not a precedent, it is an exceptional case".

The man was wounded in September 2003 when a British soldier, whom he had befriended, accidentally dropped his gun, making the weapon go off.

The Iraqi, who was aged 13 at the time of the accident, later moved to the UK where he began legal action through the British courts.

The final settlement is dependent on a further High Court hearing.

The size of the fee is likely to re-open the controversy over the compensation levels for wounded service personnel.

There are concerns that the case could set a precedent, and pave the way for further large compensation claims by Iraqis against the British government.

'Considerable costs'

But the MoD said the case was a one-off and the sum awarded covered his care for life.

"It is not expected that there are any other cases of such severity," a spokesman said.

The MoD also rejected comparisons with the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for injured British troops, which offers individuals a maximum lump sum payment of £285,000.

Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman Vince Cable said other Iraqis may now try to take legal action through the UK courts.

"The government claims that this is a completely unique case, but it is very difficult to believe that that is the case," he told Channel 4 News.

"If Iraqis were able to get access to British courts, they would clearly be entitled to much higher levels of compensation, based on this precedent.

"The costs of that could be very, very considerable indeed, adding to all the other costs of the Iraq war."

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/7347691.stm

My personal opinion on this (so don't flame me) is this is riduculous. Our boys who shouldn't be out there but for the 'conning' & greed by Blair/Bush interfering with this country get far less or nothing, but we allowed this guy to 'move' to the UK (no doubt in mitigation for what happened to him) & then he goes to a UK court to get his compensation which obviously has much higher payments.

I thought in war there were 'special' circumstances anyhow so this kind of thing is tough IMO let alone cost us the taxpayer loads of money & what is happening to our troops in injury terms or loss of life & those guys get a lot less presumably because it's their 'job' but don't get me wrong I feel sorry for the guy & his injury but I don't think in 'war' circumstances it's the same let alone come over to the UK & use our 'system'.

When the US was in 'Nam' etc did all the people/families who got shot/maimed or killed accidently sue the US for millions coz if they did I never heard too much on it? so maybe someone can enlighten me.

As mentioned it's crazy we went there in the first place let alone stayed all this time at great cost on many fronts, so just another nail in the 'UK coffin' as it gradually erodes with all these PC rules on everything or human rights blah blah.

I can feel my blood boiling so luckily I'm in sunny Spain & gonna go & chill outside & not get stressed with all this crap. Am I alone in these (or some) views hmmm. Just flashed it off quick as the sun beckons so apologies for the grammar blah:-))

Hey this might end up in the 'hot pot'

Gaz

I don't know to what extent the kid was injured, but due to the size of the payout, I would imagine it would be a fairly high level.

My problem isn't the fact that the kid got the payout, it is the fact that the troops who get injured get such poor support and compensation after they return home.

If they don't get as much compensation when they are injured, because at the time of injury they were doing their job, then their wages should reflect the dangerous job they do.

If two guys from the same unit, one on leave, one on duty, one gets paralysed in Iraq under fire, one gets paralysed in the UK in a car accident on leave, both injuries, professions and prospects are like for like.

Who will get the better support?

Two years later post injury, both are living in the UK, with the same costs, yet you can bet the guy injured in Iraq will have a lower quality of life due to financial worries and lack of support, than the guy injured in the UK.

The UK military thinks that just because they were injured doing their job, they shouldn't get the same compensation as someone in civi-street. However, that rule doesn't apply to civillian employee's in the UK, who undertake dangerous jobs does it?

It is a complex issue, and whenever governments are involved, they tend to be blinkered and slow moving, and just move on, leaving the injured to rebuild their lives on their own. In such an industry where injury is everyday life, I always found it strange how little support there is once ex-military leave and return home.

If military personel are'nt going to be compensated to civillian levels, they could at least be given some sort of care package to help with ongoing costs. Maybe they are?

The above is how I percieve military personel are treated post injury, based on the media reports I have read and watched. Maybe this perception is misguided, maybe someone can correct any misconceptions.

Hmm, should I move this topic now, as I can see it turning into a right argument!

Simon

In the case of the kid being accidentally shot vs a soldier being wounded in battle
it all boils down to workmans compensation vs personal injury.
One has fairly standardized compensation while the other is an award by a court or insurance company based on many different factors.
Fair for a soldier to get less for losing an arm in a battle than if he lost the arm as a result of being hit by a drunk driver while on leave? Probably not.

I think as said the MOD should reflect the danger involved in the wage that is paid?
The fact is doin a job or not they still need the same care as any one else and should be allowed the same comensation as any one else.



As for the kid i did not know claims direct went out to iraq????



Silone74

I actually know the iraqi guy, I was in the same spinal unit with him.

Initially that was awkward, mainly because I was a british soldier not long back from iraq, but we soon became friends and I can say that all he wanted was to be able to go back home to his family.

I was injured off duty in a climbing accident and was in the spinal unit with him a year or so after he got injured. He is a low, incomplete injury and can walk with calipers, but his spine is badly damaged and deformed.

Anyway, his family wasn't allowed to come to the UK to be with him at all. As far as I know he was fostered by an iraqi family here in the UK.

He was injured by gross negligence on the part of the soldier, at a time when basra was incredibly safe just after the war, it was classed as peace time. He was immediately evacuated to the nearest medical facility by the army, and due to the nature of his injuries ended up being flown to the UK for spinal surgery. He lived in the spinal unit for almost two years, without his family and at first only knowing the pidjin english taught to him by the troops.

I see nothing wrong what-so-ever in his payout. Just as if you had been accidently shot by a british soldier (not caught in cross fire, not mistaken for an insurgent, shot by gross negligence) you would be able to sue, then so was he able to sue, and rightly so.

This was all when war time operations had come to an end and we were "at peace", before any insurgent attacks, and we used to go shopping in basra and eat out at the local cafes!

Now the difference in the amount this guy was awarded and the payouts injured troops get is obviously the main bone of contention here, and I cant/wont argue with anyone for finding that difference appalling.

But just to clarify on a few things that people seem to be confused about.

If you are on duty and injured then you are liable to the same compensation, whether in iraq or on salisbury plain, or even driving to work. Obviously depending on the injury.

If you are off duty, then the military is not obligated to compensate you at all, so talk of people being injured off duty in the UK and getting more money than those injured on operations is wrong.

At the moment, any soldier who doesn't have personal accident insurance is a complete lunatic, in fact I think it is now compulsory to have personal insurance before you are allowed to deploy on operations.
This means that when/if injured the soldier will receive insurance payout, military compensation, full war pension (if discharged due to the severity of the injury, which normally wont happen for at least two years, which means full pay for two years at the next highest pay grade thanks to the "sympathy promotion" everyone gets if they are severely injured) and any disability benefits.

The fact that the personal insurance payout will normally be higher than the government compensation is what is so sickening.

Simon, regarding your scenario of two guys getting injured, one on leave and one on duty.

Actually the guy who wasn't on duty would probably be worse off, unless he was able to sue someone for causing his injury, If he was off duty then the military isnt really involved at all.