Often a soldier has to act intuitively, and, in assessing his conduct and judging the action of the reasonable soldier, it is important to recognise that his action ‘is not undertaken in the calm analytical atmosphere of the court room after counsel with the benefit of hindsight have expounded at length the reasons for and against the kind and degree of force that was used by the accused, but in the brief second or two which the accused had to decide whether to shoot or not and under all the stresses to which he was exposed.’
Judges:
Lord Diplock
Citations:
[1975] AC 105
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – James v Campbell 1832
The defendant was involved in a fight at a parish dinner and it was suggested that he had hit the claimant by mistake, giving him two black eyes. The jury were that even on that premise he would be liable. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bici and Bici v Ministry of Defence QBD 7-Apr-2004
Claimants sought damages for personal injuries incurred when, in Pristina, Kosovo and during a riot, British soldiers on a UN peacekeeping expedition fired on a car.
Held: The incidents occurred in the course of peace-keeping duties. It was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence, Armed Forces
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.198138
