ALLEGATIONS of murder, mutilation and torture made against British soldiers, including Scottish troops, by Iraqi detainees were "deliberate lies", a five-year public inquiry has finally ruled.
The Al Sweady Inquiry, which heard from more than 300 witnesses and cost the taxpayer £31m, found claims that up to 20 Iraqis were killed and seriously injured after a 2004 battle were "reckless speculation".
Earlier this year, the murder allegations - vigorously denied by the Ministry of Defence - were withdrawn because of insufficient evidence.
But the report found British soldiers had mistreated nine Iraqi detainees during questioning by blindfolding them and depriving them of food and sleep. These interrogation techniques have since ceased.
The inquiry, chaired by Sir Thayne Forbes, a retired judge, took evidence about what happened during the Battle of Danny Boy, a ferocious three-hour gun battle, named after a British checkpoint near Al Amarah in southern Iraq, and which involved hand to hand fighting.
The battle occurred after soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were ambushed by insurgents. Reinforcements from the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment were called in but these too were ambushed. Soldiers fixed bayonets for the first time since the Falklands War. Several were decorated for their bravery.
The inquiry found the British troops had responded to the ambush with "exemplary courage, resolution and professionalism".
It suggested some of the detainees - all described as members or supporters of the Mahdi Army insurgent group - consciously lied about the most serious allegations to discredit the British armed forces.
In a Commons statement, Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, said the serious allegations made against the British troops were "completely baseless".
He explained that by July 4 2013 expert witnesses had demonstrated "unequivocally" that the Iraqis had died from wounds sustained in the fighting.
Mr Fallon stressed to MPs that if this concession had been made, then it would not have been necessary for as many soldiers to have given evidence, that the inquiry could have been concluded earlier and the bill to the taxpayer would have been smaller.
The Secretary of State challenged the lawyers involved from Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day & Co to issue an "unequivocal apology" to the soldiers "whose reputations they attempted to traduce" and to taxpayers for the costs incurred for "exposing these lies".
Mr Fallon said: "The falsity of the overwhelming majority of their allegations, the extraordinarily late disclosure of a document showing the nine detainees to have been insurgents and the delay by their lawyers in withdrawing the allegations of torture and murder have prompted the Solicitors' Regulation Authority to investigate possible breaches of professional standards.
"The authority is expected to complete its investigation into the two firms responsible - Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day & Co - by early next year."
In the Lords, two former service chiefs also hit out.
Admiral Lord West of Spithead, the former First Sea Lord, said it appeared there was more interest in the human rights of "people who set out to kill us" than of British soldiers.
General Lord Dannatt, the ex-Chief of the General Staff, said there was an "unhealthy predisposition" to take seriously claims made against British armed forces and the inquiry had put an "outrageous" stress on soldiers working in difficult conditions.
But Public Interest Lawyers insisted the court action had been "legally necessary, morally justified and politically required".
It pointed to the criticisms of ill-treatment and violations of human rights mentioned in the inquiry's report, including breaches of the Geneva Convention.
The inquiry was named after Hamid Al Sweady, a 19-year-old student whose father Mizal Karim Al Sweady claimed he was murdered after being detained.
It was ordered in November 2009 by Labour's Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary at the time, amid concerns from High Court judges that the MoD had not properly investigated the events of May 2004.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article