Betrayed by the System: The Endless Ordeal of Our Soldiers
How the Article 2 legal process has turned heroes into scapegoats and left them trapped in a 33-year nightmare.
For over three decades, the impact of the Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 legal process has weighed heavily on the lives of soldiers who once served to protect the nation. Its indirect consequences have rippled through the military community and, ultimately, the country itself. Few cases illustrate this more starkly than that of RHM—a man who dedicated his life to service, only to find himself ensnared in an unrelenting legal and bureaucratic nightmare.
One of the reasons I chose to break cover and write our letter to The Times was to draw attention to the plight of our soldiers. By “our,” I refer to the men and women who embody the spirit of the well-known proverb: “We sleep safely at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.” Yet, these very individuals, who have risked their lives in the service of our country, are now being cast aside, their sacrifices ignored.
A Soldier’s Story
RHM is one of those men. I served with him first as his sergeant major, then later alongside him during operations in Bosnia. He was a vital part of a patrol commanded by Captain Edward Smythe-Osbourne, a distinguished officer who later became a three-star lieutenant general in charge of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. Their mission in Bosnia was perilous. Tasked with peacekeeping during a full-blown battle between the defending Bosniaks and the attacking Serb Manoeuvre Army, RHM played a critical role in supporting the young officer leading the patrol. The team’s actions prevented a major escalation and saved countless lives, all while under heavy shellfire. This is the reality of what politicians lightly refer to as ‘peacekeeping.’
RHM went on to serve with the SAS from 1987 to 2021—a period that dwarfs my own 25 years in the Regiment. Over the years, he developed what the Americans recognise as Operator Syndrome, a condition linked to repeated exposure to high-risk environments. This syndrome is caused by brain bleeds leading to military-related mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI). Its most common side effect is severe personality changes, often manifesting as depression. Despite its significant impact, the UK’s Ministry of Defence refuses to acknowledge this condition—a failure that has contributed significantly to RHM’s ongoing struggles.
The 33-Year Legal Ordeal
Neverthless, RHM’s medical suffering pales in comparison to the relentless legal battle that has defined the last 33 years of his life. RHM has been embroiled in the Article 2 legal process, a mechanism designed to investigate the actions of soldiers on duty in Northern Ireland. Crucially, Article 2 does not apply to terrorists—it only targets state actors, leaving the individuals responsible for heinous acts of violence beyond its reach. This one-sided application of justice has resulted in soldiers being subjected to perpetual legal scrutiny while those who engaged in terrorism evade accountability.
RHM was initially cleared of wrongdoing and received a release letter from his lawyers in 2005. However, due to repeated reinterpretations of the Article 2 process, he was drawn back into further inquiries. This cycle has continued for nearly two decades, keeping him and many others in a state of legal limbo. The mental and emotional toll of such a prolonged ordeal is unimaginable, yet it remains an inconvenient truth that the government refuses to address.
The Political Weaponisation of Human Rights
The Article 2 investigations overrule traditional legal processes, ensuring that no matter how many inquiries conclude, new ones are always created. The next phase of this cycle is the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), another attempt to unearth ‘truths’ about events long past. This obsession with scrutinising the actions of soldiers, while ignoring the brutality of terrorists, is not about justice—it is about sustaining a grievance industry that profits from perpetual legal entanglement.
The current political approach to the Northern Ireland Legacy process was enshrined in law in November 2023 through the Northern Ireland Legacy Act. However, the Labour government’s decision to suspend its implementation as of May 2024 has once again plunged soldiers like RHM into uncertainty. Everything is now ‘under review,’ meaning that decades of stress and anxiety continue with no resolution in sight.
Where is the Accountability?
If Article 2 truly seeks full disclosure and accountability, then the burden should not fall solely on soldiers. Those who gave the orders—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable of the RUC, the heads of Special Branch and military command—must also be held responsible. It is absurd and morally reprehensible that only the soldiers who carried out their duty are left to answer for decisions made at the highest levels of government and military leadership.
The psychological toll on veterans cannot be understated. The betrayal they feel is compounded by the knowledge that those in power are more concerned with appeasing human rights activists than protecting those who once protected them. The UK public expects its government to defend its citizens against violent threats. Instead, it has created a legal mechanism that punishes those who have done precisely that.
The Future Threat
This self-destructive legal quagmire extends beyond Northern Ireland. The threats we face today are real and growing. The events of 7th October 2023 in Israel serve as a stark reminder of the brutality that ideological extremism is capable of. The same radical ideologies that fuelled that attack already exist within pockets of the UK. Yet, rather than fortifying our security forces, we are paralysing them through political and legal constraints that render them ineffective.
Our police have been reduced to a ‘service,’ treated like customer representatives rather than enforcers of the law. Armed police hesitate to act, knowing they could face the same legal purgatory as RHM if they make the wrong split-second decision. The message is clear: the government will not stand by those who risk their lives for public safety.
A Demand for Change
We, as former soldiers, do not seek immunity from accountability. We are not mercenaries or criminals—we are professionals trained to protect the nation within the framework of the law. But that law must be fair, rational, and applicable to all parties involved, including those who choose to engage in terrorism. The ECHR, in its current application, has been weaponised against the very people it should protect.
The Ministry of Defence must suspend all legal proceedings against veterans while a comprehensive review of the ECHR’s impact on counter-terrorism operations takes place. The political elite, enamoured with ideological pacifism, have allowed our legal system to be hijacked. The result is a nation that is becoming increasingly defenceless in the face of rising threats.
The irony of it all is overwhelming. Soldiers like RHM spent their careers defending the rights and freedoms of the British public, only to have their own rights trampled upon by the very government they served. It is time for change. Our military personnel deserve better. Our nation deserves better.
ARTICLE 2 EXPLAINED
Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a key article in cases involving police shootings, military actions, deaths in prisons, and failures by social services.
Article 2 protects the right to life. It is one of the most fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Key Aspects of Article 2 are:
The State’s Duty to Protect Life – Governments must take appropriate measures to protect life, including:
Ensuring law enforcement uses force only when absolutely necessary.
Providing effective healthcare and emergency services.
Preventing foreseeable threats to life, such as protecting individuals from known dangers (e.g., domestic abuse, terrorism, or medical negligence).
Restrictions on the Use of Force – Article 2 allows the use of force only when "absolutely necessary", such as:
In self-defense or to protect others.
To prevent a person from committing a serious crime.
During lawful arrest or preventing escape from custody.
Investigation of Deaths Involving the State – If someone dies in suspicious circumstances involving public authorities (e.g., in police custody, during military operations, or due to failures in healthcare), the state mustconduct a proper investigation.