This report forms part of a series documenting civilian deaths in Basra during British control of southern Iraq between 2003 and 2009. Drawing on eyewitness testimony, contemporaneous media reporting, British military correspondence, compensation records and legal files, the series examines incidents that were acknowledged at the time but never fully investigated, prosecuted or resolved.
Britain entered Iraq in March 2003 as part of the United States-led coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Its area of responsibility lay in the south, centred on Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city and a critical oil and port hub. In the months following the invasion, British forces operated in an environment of collapsing institutions, hostile crowds and uncertain rules of engagement. It was during this period that Hanaan Saleh Matrood, an eight-year-old girl, was fatally shot.
The incident on Oil Street
On 21 August 2003, a British patrol entered Oil Street in Basra. According to multiple accounts provided by the child’s family and later recorded in British military correspondence, the patrol consisted of two Warrior armoured vehicles belonging to B Company, 1st Battalion The King’s Regiment (1 KINGS).
A British internal letter dated October 2003, issued by B Company, states that the area was “known to be hostile” and that the patrol had earlier been subjected to stone-throwing by a crowd.
A soldier fired what the letter describes as a warning shot into the air, intended to disperse civilians. The document concedes that the round may have struck Hanaan Saleh Matrood and describes this as a “possibility”, not a confirmed finding.
What is not disputed is that Hanaan was struck by a bullet in the abdominal area and suffered catastrophic injuries.
According to her father, Saleh Matrood Hmoud, she was standing near the doorway of her home, approximately 50 metres from the vehicles.
She was wearing a red dress with flower patterns. The bullet hole caused a deadlier scarlet flowering.
Hanaan was transported to hospital by British personnel, accompanied by her uncle. She was taken to Al Fayhaa Hospital, where she died from her wounds.
British military correspondence confirms that she remained conscious after being shot.
She died the following day, 22 August 2003.
Immediate British response and acknowledgment
In the days following the shooting, British officers made repeated visits to the family. Saleh Matrood recalls being told that the shooting was unintentional, an explanation consistent with later British descriptions of an accidental or misdirected “warning shot”.
British personnel even attended the funeral.
Then they paid for the loss. On 25 October 2003, a British soldier identified on official paperwork as Cpl Hirst, 1 KINGS BG, issued a handwritten Ministry of Defence receipt (MOD Form 824) for $700, described explicitly as a “charitable donation” to “Hanan’s family”. The receipt lists the payment as authorised and signed by British personnel and countersigned by a recipient.
This payment is significant. While framed as charitable, it constitutes a documented acknowledgement by British forces that the death had occurred and that responsibility for funeral expenses was accepted at unit level, even as no legal liability was admitted.
Saleh Matrood states that British officers, including one he remembers as Major Gary, visited the family several times thereafter. According to Saleh, a British representative later offered to relocate the family to the United Kingdom as a form of apology. He declined, citing family ties and livelihood in Iraq
A BBC Arabic article dated 15 February 2007, reported on the killing of Iraqi civilians by British forces. It included the case of Hanaan Saleh Matrood.
Contemporary media coverage
The killing was reported at the time by BBC Arabic, which published an article describing the death of an eight-year-old Iraqi girl shot by British forces on Oil Street. The report included a photograph of Hanaan and noted that British authorities had not opened a formal investigation.
Beyond this coverage, the incident attracted limited international media attention. However, Rory McCarthy, then a correspondent for The Guardian, did later engage with the family. Saleh today retains business cards from The Guardian, Amnesty International, British civil claims officers based at Basra International Airport, and representatives of Public Interest Lawyers – the proof he shows of his sustained attempts to pursue accountability through journalistic and legal channels.
The legal pursuit
In December 2013, Public Interest Lawyers Ltd formally wrote to Saleh Matrood confirming that it was acting on his behalf in a claim against the UK government for the death of his daughter. The letter, signed by Phil Shiner, set out the structural obstacles facing such claims.
The firm advised that establishing legal liability under English law would be difficult, particularly in the absence of independent forensic evidence. It explained that even if liability were established, compensation for the death of an Iraqi civilian would likely be modest. At that time, the UK government was explicitly refusing to accept legal liability.
The letter outlined a proposed negotiation strategy, suggesting a settlement value discounted by 25 per cent to reflect litigation risk. No settlement was ultimately reached.
No compensation beyond the original $700 payment was ever made.
IHAT and the absence of resolution
On 8 October 2014, Saleh received a formal letter from the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT). Signed by a senior investigating officer, the letter confirmed that IHAT was investigating the shooting of Hanaan Hmood Matrood on 21 August 2003 and invited further information from the family.
The letter provided named points of contact and promised updates. None followed. IHAT was later disbanded amid political controversy, with thousands of cases closed without findings. No public outcome of the investigation into Hanaan’s death has ever been disclosed.
Official figures reveal only one prosecution of UK armed forces personnel for war crimes overseas since 2001.
Consequences for the family
The long-term impact on Hanaan’s family cannot be undestated.
Saleh Matrood describes suffering a heart attack and undergoing heart surgery following the trauma of his daughter’s death. His wife experienced significant psychological distress. The family’s economic stability was undermined, they claim.
Hanaan was buried in Zubair, not in Najaf, the city her father would have preferred, because roads were closed during the early occupation. Her grave remains there.
Today, Saleh has three daughters and one son. But Saleh leaves a hole in his heart. He describes Hanaan as energetic, playful and eager to learn. “She was innocent,” he says. “She carried no weapon. She did nothing.”
What distinguishes this case is not merely the killing itself, but the contradictory record left behind. British forces acknowledged the death, paid funeral costs, issued written accounts of the incident and later confirmed it fell within IHAT’s remit. Yet at no stage did these acknowledgements crystallise into accountability, prosecution or compensation.
The British military letter of October 2003 frames the fatal shot as an unintended consequence of crowd control. The MOD receipt frames payment as charitable, not compensatory. The UK government later denied legal liability altogether. These positions coexist, unresolved.
Under international humanitarian law, occupying forces are required to protect civilians and minimise harm, particularly to children. Whether the shot that killed Hanaan was fired as a warning or in error does not alter the outcome: a child was killed during a British patrol in a residential street.
More than two decades later, Hanaan Saleh Matrood’s death remains officially unaccounted for. Her case exists in fragments: a BBC article, a military letter hedged with uncertainty, a receipt marked “charitable donation”, a solicitor’s warning about legal limits, and an investigation that ended without conclusion.
For her father, the issue is no longer money. “I want my rights,” Saleh says. “My innocent child was killed. Why did she die?”
That question has never been answered by the British state.
Annex 1: letter from IHAT
This letter, dated 8 October 2014, informs Salih Hmood Matrood that the UK government’s Iraq Historic Allegations Team is formally investigating the shooting of Hanaan Hmood Matrood on 21 August 2003, explains the remit of the investigation into alleged wrongdoing by British forces in Iraq, and provides contact details for investigators should the recipient wish to share further information, while promising updates on progress.
Annex 2: letters from Public Interest Lawyers
Together, these letters explain that Public Interest Lawyers are advising the father of Hanaan Saleh Matrood that pursuing compensation from the UK government for her killing by British forces will be legally difficult, uncertain and slow, because the government denies liability, evidence is contested, and English law allows only limited damages for death; they therefore recommend attempting an out-of-court settlement at a discounted value, warning of a significant risk of losing entirely if the case proceeds to trial, and ask for confidential written authority to negotiate on the family’s behalf.
Annex 3: a letter from the British Army
This letter, dated October 2003 and issued by B Company, 1st Battalion The King’s Regiment, sets out the army’s account of the death of eight-year-old Hanan Salih Matrood, stating that she was fatally wounded during unrest near Qarmat Ali when British soldiers fired warning shots to disperse a hostile crowd, that her injury may have resulted from one such shot though this was not proven, and that the document is a factual statement rather than an admission of legal liability, provided to the family for possible compensation claims.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate