Story Highlight
– Josh Hoole collapsed and died during a fitness test.
– Similar incidents in 2013 resulted in three soldier deaths.
– Crown immunity shields MoD from health and safety prosecutions.
– Phillip Hoole calls for equality under the law.
– Ongoing review may lead to corporate manslaughter charge.
Full Story
In a tragic event that has resonated deeply within military communities, the story of Corporal Josh Hoole, who succumbed to heat during an Annual Fitness Test in Brecon, Wales, highlights serious concerns about health and safety practices in the armed forces. Josh, a fit 26-year-old, collapsed during an intense eight-mile assessment held in extremely high temperatures, bringing back chilling memories of a similar incident in 2013 when three Army reservists lost their lives during a 16-mile SAS selection march in the Brecon Beacons.
Following Josh’s untimely death in 2016, the initial response from Army officials was to misattribute the cause to a pre-existing medical condition, a claim that was subsequently disproven. Phillip Hoole, Josh’s father, has since been vocal about his belief that government entities have evaded accountability regarding health and safety protocols, attributing this to a controversial legal doctrine known as “crown immunity.” This principle effectively shields governmental bodies from prosecution, raising questions about equality before the law.
Phillip argued that the ongoing issue of crown immunity is at odds with the foundational tenet of the rule of law, which posits that every individual and organisation should be subject to the same legal framework. Despite an official coroner’s report highlighting significant failings on the part of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and a failure to learn from prior tragedies, public sector organisations are seldom prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, typically facing investigations under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) instead.
Crown immunity protects organisations like the MoD from legal repercussions, only subjecting them to non-judicial measures called “crown censure.” These censure proceedings lack formal legal weight and transparency, allowing violations of health and safety laws to go unpunished. This codified protection has prompted Phillip to question the adequacy of these measures in providing justice for those impacted.
“The failings in Josh’s case warrant a corporate manslaughter prosecution,” Phillip asserted. He expressed frustration that the crown censure issued after the 2013 incident did not prevent similar tragedies, underscoring the effectiveness of such measures in averting future harm. “If the Health & Safety at Work Act was aligned with the Corporate Manslaughter Act, families like mine would not need to campaign relentlessly for accountability,” he added.
Phillip has also expressed his discontent with the government’s approach toward the legal status of veterans, highlighting perceived contradictions between legislative changes aimed at veterans and ongoing protections for public bodies. His experience has led him to advocate for reform, arguing that the current framework creates a “backdoor lock” that allows the MoD and other agencies to evade appropriate scrutiny and accountability.
As Phillip works to establish a clear narrative of the events surrounding his son’s death, he feels optimistic that law enforcement agencies, including the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), are preparing to address the possibility of a corporate manslaughter charge against the MoD. “If this was a private company, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) would pursue a corporate manslaughter charge. That does not happen when it involves crown bodies due to their immunity,” he said, calling for a fundamental shift in how public bodies are held accountable.
Robert Spicer, a barrister based in Bristol with a focus on employment law, has provided commentary on the implications of crown immunity in relation to health and safety. He noted, “While the Government espouses the virtues of the rule of law, it simultaneously shields itself from legal accountability through crown immunity. This glaring contradiction undermines the principle that no one is above the law.”
In pondering the necessary steps to challenge this longstanding issue, both Phillip and Spicer emphasised the importance of political advocacy. Phillip continues to rally support for these changes, stating, “Retaining crown immunity serves self-interests, allowing government entities to avoid repercussions for failures that have dire consequences for service personnel. Surely they deserve legal protection as well?”
The absence of governmental response to Phillip’s submissions regarding the outdated nature of crown immunity further adds to the sense of urgency surrounding the matter. He insists that the current state contradicts the principles of justice and human rights inherent in UK law.
Support for Phillip has come from Madeleine Moon, a former MP for Bridgend, who described the circumstances of Josh’s death as deeply troubling. Drawing on her background in safeguarding, she outlined that neglect and failure to take responsibility were evident in the handling of the case. Moon has called for heightened rigor in Army training and selection processes, advocating for a clearly defined “duty holder” accountable for ensuring the safety of military personnel involved in rigorous assessments.
Responding to Phillip’s campaign against crown immunity, she echoed his sentiment that the issue merits serious re-evaluation to allow affected families to pursue justice without the prohibitive costs often associated with judicial reviews.
While the Ministry of Justice has yet to comment on these pressing matters, the debate surrounding crown immunity continues to evolve, and with it, the potential for reform that may ultimately lead to greater accountability and protection for those who serve in the nation’s armed forces. The journey for justice initiated by Phillip Hoole suggests that the voices of those impacted by systemic failings may yet inspire meaningful change in the intersection of law and military oversight.
Our Thoughts
To avoid the tragic incident involving Josh Hoole, there should have been better risk assessments and heat stress management protocols in place, particularly given the extreme weather conditions. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) should have implemented lessons learned from the similar 2013 incident that resulted in three deaths, reaffirming the importance of monitoring environmental factors and considering individual soldier considerations during fitness tests.
The Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) mandates that employers, including public sector bodies, ensure the health and safety of their employees. The MoD’s failure to heed past warnings indicates a breach of the HSWA’s requirements for risk management and staff welfare. Furthermore, continuing to apply “crown immunity” undermines accountability and the potential for prosecution under corporate manslaughter laws, which could serve as a deterrent to ensure compliance with safety regulations.
To prevent similar incidents, there must be an overhaul of the framework surrounding crown immunity, allowing for appropriate legal repercussions for public bodies that fail to protect personnel during high-risk activities. Enhanced training, regular safety audits, and clear accountability measures should be integral to military operations to safeguard the health of service members.
