Employment

Soldier serving overseas in United Nations peacekeeping force - serious injury caused by deliberate attack by warring faction - no award under Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) SchemeRegina v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Walker: HL (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Saville of Newdigate and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough): 6 April 2000The Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) Scheme was introduced to give members of the armed forces who were victims of crimes of violence while serving overseas compensation equivalent to that for which they would have been eligible if the criminal act had been committed in Great Britain.

Originally, the scheme excluded acts of violence committed 'by an enemy where a state of war exists or a warlike situation is declared to exist'.

In 1994, the policy was changed so as to exclude injury occurring to servicemen 'as a result of war operations or military activity by warring factions'.

The applicant was injured while serving with the United Nations Peacekeeping force in Bosnia when his United Nations accommodation block was targeted and fired on by a Serb tank.

He was denied compensation under the scheme as his injury was said to be the result of 'military activity by a warring faction'.

The judge dismissed his application for judicial review of that decision and the Court of Appeal ([1999] 1 WLR 1209) upheld that decision.

The applicant appealed.David Pannick QC and Michael Fordham (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for the applicant.

Philip Sales (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Ministry of Defence.Held, dismissing the appeal (Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough dissenting), that the attack on the applicant reasonably fell within the description 'military activity by a warring faction'; that there was no necessary incompatibility or mutual exclusiveness between 'military activity' and activity which was criminal under international law; that, as the applicant had had no idea what the policy was either before or after 1994, the only legitimate expectation he could have had was that the ministry would apply whatever its policy was at the relevant time and that he would have an opportunity to make representations that he was within the scheme; that the application of the policy so as to exclude soldiers serving with the United Nations in Bosnia but not soldiers serving in Northern Ireland was not irrational; and that, accordingly, there were no grounds for disturbing the ministry's decision.

(WLR)