In 2013 the Supreme Court ruled that soldiers’ right to life did indeed extend to cover them when they were away from British bases in warzones.[1] The ruling came after a number of families claimed that the Ministry of Defence had breached their relatives right to life by failing to provide adequate equipment, which had resulted in the death of soldiers. This was the culmination of a six-year legal battle by Sue Smith, whose son, Private Phillip Hewett, 21, was killed in Iraq, alongside two other soldiers, when a roadside bomb hit their Snatch Land Rover in July 2005. Mrs Smith brought the case alongside the family of Private Lee Ellis, 23, who was also killed in a separate incident in a Snatch. This vehicle was considered so vulnerable to bombs that it later earned the nickname ‘the mobile coffin’ and was eventually withdrawn from military operations.[2] However, concern over soldiers’ equipment and how, when this is inadequate, it puts soldiers’ lives at risk, is not a new problem, and has roots as far back as the Crimean War of 1853-6.
By the winter of 1854-5 the war had ground to a halt and as Christmas 1854 approached, Thomas Kitching, an infantryman, along with tens of thousands of other ordinary soldiers in the British Army, was struggling to remain alive in a hostile, foreign land. These men were facing near-starvation and freezing temperatures, without shelter or warm clothing. They lived under the constant threat of death or injury from enemy gunfire or being attacked by the ravages of disease. Yet Thomas, like most of his comrades, believed fervently that he was doing his duty to God, Queen and Country.
When it came to invading the Crimea, it is now well known that the planning and preparations were inadequate. The allied commanders had no maps of the area, no accurate information about the climate, they had no idea how many Russian troops were there, nor where they were.[3] Ignorance of conditions, together with over-confident ambition that the capture of Sevastopol would be rapidly achieved, meant that no winter clothing or accommodation had been prepared for the soldiers.[4] Just as in 2013, criticisms were made that soldiers were not being provided with the correct equipment they needed to survive.
I never once thought I should experience such hardships in my life. […] I have been near five months under canvas without a bed. I have my blanket and big coat and my knapsack form my bed. Our bread is coarse buff and brown, our meat of the worst description.[5]
Despite the soldiers’ lack of correct equipment and supplies, politicians in London and Paris insisted the invasion of Sevastopol take place. The landing and disembarkation of the British Army in the Crimea took place at Calamita Bay between 14th and 17th September 1854. Those in charge had made no provision for transport, ambulances, tents, food or fresh water. Almost all the soldiers were suffering from dysentery and had to lie all night in rows on the rain-drenched beach, wrapped only in their sodden great-coats.[6]
Throughout his involvement in the Crimean Campaign, Thomas Kitching had recognised the shortcomings of the provision made for the ordinary soldiers, but bore them with fortitude as part of serving his God, Queen and Country. Many, like Thomas, would have had a wife and family at home, short of money. Thomas repeatedly remarks in his letters on the impossibility of sending home his pay owing to bad organisation.
Dear Wife, I hope you will not think me unkind in not sending you the money I promised you; you would have had it long ago if our paymaster had papers to send to our agent but I will send you three sovereigns as soon as I can, I have them saved up for you.[7]
In early 1855, Florence Nightingale, recognising the problem, set up a system for the wounded in the hospital at Scutari to send home their pay, which the soldiers readily used. She tried to extend the scheme to the soldiers once they had re-joined their regiments on the Heights of Sevastopol, but the authorities refused.[8] Sadly, this initiative was too late for Thomas Kitching who died on 11th December 1854, after five or six days of fever.
The high mortality rates amongst ordinary soldiers from disease alone was as much as 73 per cent in this six-month period. This was directly the result of poor planning and organisation in terms of providing the men with the clothing, food and shelter they needed to survive. [9] This case from the winter of 1854-5 bears several similarities to the more recent 2013 Supreme Court case, particularly the assumption by authorities that soldiers’ right to life did not extend into war zones. Similarly, in both cases, soldiers died as a result of equipment that was not deemed fit for purpose. Jocelyn Cockburn, Mrs Smith’s solicitor said,
“it is essential that we recognise the human rights and dignity of our soldiers. How else can we expect them to uphold the fundamental human rights of those they come across in conflict if they themselves are not protected?”[10]
By Jane Page and Claire Kennan.
Jane is a U3A researcher for the Citizens 800 Project. Claire is a Citizens 800 Project Officer and PhD researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-ruling-that-soldiers-have-the-right-to-life-even-in-war-zones-will-have-major-8664598.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Orlando Figes, Crimea, the Last Crusade, (London: Allen Lane, 2010), p. 197.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Thomas Kitching, Devno, Turkey, 24th July 1854.
[6] Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Reason Why (Hammersmith: penguin, 1958), p. 174.
[7] Thomas Kitching, Heights of Sevastopol, 21st October 1854.
[8] Cecil Woodham-Smith, Florence Nightingale (The Reprint Society, 1952), p. 195.
[9] Ibid, p. 211.
[10] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-ruling-that-soldiers-have-the-right-to-life-even-in-war-zones-will-have-major-8664598.html
