On October 8, 2024, three retired SAS veterans—Aldwin Wight, George Simm, and Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton—published a letter in The Times calling on the UK government to exempt British soldiers, particularly special forces, from human rights prosecutions. Their argument hinges on claims that legal cases brought against soldiers under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are “predominantly vexatious” and obstruct military operations.
They specifically criticized the Human Rights Act of 1998, which enshrined the ECHR into UK law, and suggested that current legal frameworks are undermining the military covenant between the British people and their armed forces. The veterans also called for the government to activate Article 15 of the ECHR, allowing derogations from certain rights during times of war.
The Context of Their Protest
The veterans’ outcry comes at a time when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is grappling with a series of allegations of war crimes committed by British Special Forces in Afghanistan. Both AOAV and the BBC’s Panorama program uncovered credible claims that SAS soldiers unlawfully killed civilians, including detainees, during night raids in Afghanistan.
A recent independent inquiry revealed internal MoD documents, one of which showed that the department concluded in 2019 that these allegations were “broadly accurate.” Yet, despite this, the MoD then sought to deny these claims, with no prosecutions being pursued by the Royal Military Police (RMP).
The letter from the SAS veterans aligns with this pattern of evasion. Their assertion that cases brought under human rights law are “vexatious” is profoundly misleading. Many of these cases involve serious accusations of unlawful killings and extrajudicial executions, not frivolous legal challenges.
For example, an internal memo from 2011 revealed by the Panorama investigation warned of “an unofficial policy” within some SAS units to kill Afghan men regardless of whether they posed an immediate threat. The memo further alleged that evidence had been fabricated to suggest lawful killings in self-defence. These are not minor accusations—they are grave allegations of war crimes.
Discrediting the Claims
The argument that human rights laws are “hounding” soldiers is not only a mischaracterisation but a dangerous denial of accountability.
The ECHR and the Human Rights Act were designed to ensure that justice is upheld, not to impede military operations. Legal scrutiny is essential to prevent the abuse of power, protect the innocent, and maintain ethical standards within the armed forces. British soldiers, like any other group in society, must be held accountable for their actions, particularly when these actions involve potential violations of international law.
The call to activate Article 15 of the ECHR to derogate from certain rights is also misguided. Article 15 is intended for extreme situations, such as during wartime or public emergencies, and is subject to stringent conditions. It cannot be invoked as a blanket exemption for soldiers, particularly not to shield them from legitimate investigations into serious allegations of war crimes.
Exempting British soldiers from all human rights laws would set a dangerous precedent, not only undermining the rule of law but also tarnishing the reputation of the British armed forces.
The Broader Implications
The demands made by these SAS veterans distract from the real issue—ensuring that the British military operates within a framework of transparency and accountability. Recent revelations from the ongoing Afghanistan inquiry show that these cases of alleged misconduct are not isolated incidents, and failing to address them only deepens public mistrust.
Accountability does not weaken the military; it strengthens it by ensuring that its actions are in line with the values and principles it is meant to defend.
By framing legal scrutiny as a “dangerous failure of democracy,” the veterans risk eroding the moral and legal standards that uphold the military’s integrity. The public has a right to know the truth about these allegations, and British soldiers must not be placed above the law. Rather than seek exemptions, the focus should be on ensuring thorough, transparent investigations into any claims of misconduct. T
his is the only way to preserve the public’s trust in the armed forces and maintain the moral high ground that British soldiers are sworn to uphold.
In light of the ongoing inquiry and the BBC’s findings, the veterans’ claim that these cases are “vexatious” is not only unfounded but also irresponsible. The MoD’s own documents show that the concerns raised by the media and whistleblowers were “broadly accurate,” and the failure to prosecute these crimes raises serious questions about the handling of these cases.
Exempting special forces from human rights laws would not only undermine the justice system but also dismiss the rights of the victims of these alleged abuses.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate