IHAT

Intro: IHAT’s investigations has not led to a shred of evidence of systematic abuse

RECENT media and press coverage has laid bare the iniquitous practice of British soldiers being persecuted by their own country for doing their job. That is also the uncomfortable conclusion being drawn by critics of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT). Revelations stemming over a range of apparent abuses and mistakes made has led to a sense of betrayal that has markedly worsened.

Legal activism is being fuelled by a litany of inquiries. These should be ended by the Government who must be assumed to have a duty of care to those soldiers who have served the nation. Frivolous and vexatious claims being pursued by ambulance chasing lawyers to the point of it becoming so routine, often at huge expense to the legal aid bill, should stop.

The scale of payments made by IHAT to Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), a legal firm that lodged more than 2,400 criminal complaints against British troops, has been staggering. PIL shut down over the summer after its legal aid was withdrawn, and in the last few days the firm’s founder, Phil Shiner, conceded to a legal disciplinary hearing that he ‘must be’ struck off after he admitted acting ‘recklessly and without integrity’.

Among IHAT’s expenses, drawing on funds supplied by the Ministry of Defence, some £1.4 million was paid in travel and hotel costs for Iraqi civilians, PIL staff and IHAT investigators travelling to Turkey and Lebanon. A sole Iraqi agent, who worked as a tout for PIL, received more than £110,000 for three years’ work – as well as receiving separate money to cover hotel and travel costs in and out of Iraq. And PIL’s paralegals were paid up to £75 per hour to sit with Iraqi civilians during interviews. A dozen payments, totally nearly £210,000, were even made to the disgraced legal firm after the MoD had reported the organisation to the legal watchdog.

We must look at how this strange situation has arisen. IHAT was set up ostensibly to avoid the British Armed Forces being investigated by the International Criminal Court. PIL sought redress on a mountain of cases, and, it is presumed, payments from IHAT to PIL were made for the alleged abuses to be investigated as fully as possible.

What other police operation in the world behaves in such a way, one in which the alleged victims of abuse and their lawyers are paid to give evidence? IHAT’s independence clearly looks to have been compromised.

While it is surely right that the Government should end many of these insatiable inquiries that has led to legal activism, it must also be right that where individual soldiers have committed crimes that any charges are investigated and the guilty are brought to justice.

IHAT’s investigations has not led to a shred of evidence of systematic abuse. That has not been the case. The abuse being raised by its growing number of critics is the team’s largesse and its deliberate and provocative hounding of veterans.

 

Appendage:

Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT)

. What is it?

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat) was set up by the Labour government in 2010 to examine allegations of abuse, including murder and torture, made by hundreds of Iraqi civilians by British armed forces

. How many cases have they examined?

The investigative team, led by a team of retired police officers, has looked at 1,490 cases of abuse, the vast majority brought to the unit’s attention by Public Interest Lawyers, which closed down in the summer after being stripped of legal aid funding over alleged irregularities in connection with a number of Iraqi claims.

. What offences have been alleged?

They range from alleged murder to low-level violence from the start of the military campaign in Iraq, March 2003, through to the major combat operations of April 2003 and the following years spent maintaining security and mentoring and training Iraqi security forces.

. Why has IHAT been criticised?

It has been accused of “betraying” British veterans after revelations that three servicemen, including a decorated major, could become the first troops to be prosecuted over the death of an Iraqi teenager 13 years ago. The decision to consider charges comes despite a 2006 military investigation that cleared the three men of wrongdoing.

. How have veterans responded?

Hilary Meredith, the lawyer acting for the major, who has not been identified, condemned the recommendation to prosecute her client. She said he was awarded two medals for bravery and is now suffering mental and physical health problems.

. How much has the inquiry cost?

Red Snapper Recruitment is paid nearly £5million a year by the Ministry of Defence to provide staff, including ex-police officers, to the inquiry. The agency is owned by husband and wife Martin and Helen Jerrold; company accounts show the couple were paid a dividend of £318,539 in in the 12 months to May 31, 2014 in the year after the contract was awarded. The firm’s profits have also risen – from 181,980 in May 2013 to £1.1million in May last year.