Report comment

Are there aspects of the no-win no fee brigade which are unethical? Quite often, yes, in my professional experience. Anything seems to go once making money to feed the claims factory becomes the dominant motive.

Should the Ministry of Defence be immune from claims arising from the British State's military operations around the world where unlawful killing or torture has taken place? Obviously not.

If Mr Day is guilty of pursuing claims without careful checking, then Mr Mercer is surely guilty of making unsubstantiated allegations which do not take account of the fact that (1) the British military have in fact from time to time committed heinous unlawful acts (Northern Ireland is but one example) and (2) that compensation was in fact paid by the MoD to a number of claimants in Iraq.

Some of these televised Parliamentary committee hearings seem sometimes to be more like a lynch mob that a serious attempt to get at the facts and to assess those facts objectively. Individual MPs often lack the forensic skills and/or have inadequately prepared to question well prepared witnesses properly and, because there is no protection for the witness, the MPs settle for grandstanding by simply heaping abuse on the witness or offering their own opinions unsupported by evidence. [ ‘It was entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility. You are deluded Martyn, you are absolutely deluded].

Mr Mercer's jibe about choosing to sue the MoD rather than individual soldiers only reveals his own ignorance of how tort operates (on his logic, presumably there is something morally repugnant about suing employers for the tortious acts of their employees).