Alexander Blackman was a British soldier who served in Afghanistan on several tours, most notably in 2011. He was known as Marine A and was
sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of an unarmed and injured
combatant in Afghanistan. His case has endured a multitude of commentary and
several court cases. Originally, he was found guilty of murder but this has now
been reduced to manslaughter after an appeal, funded by his wife and several
interested parties. I myself, have several reservations about this verdict and its
implications on international treaties currently in effect. I believe the Court
of Appeal has made a mistake and has partly legitimised the execution of those
who could become prisoners.
The Incident
On 15 September 2011 insurgents attacked Command
Post Taalanda in South West Helmand, using small arms fire. An Apache
helicopter from Camp Bastion was called in to fight back and targeted and
supposedly killed the insurgents.
On that afternoon Sergeant Alexander Blackman, of
42 Commando, Royal Marines, was part of a patrol that was ordered to undertake
what was called a battle damage assessment. On this patrol, they came across a
Taliban soldier in a field, wounded by Apache Helicopter gunfire. The
helicopter fired a total of 139 30mm rounds at that insurgent, and believed it
was impossible for him to have survived.
Upon discovering the insurgent, Blackman ordered
the Afghan to be moved out of sight of the British Persistent Ground
Surveillance System, a camera on a balloon above the British Forward Operating
in Helmand Province. Blackman was with two other soldiers Corporal Watson,
known as Marine B, and Marine Hammond, known as Marine C. Blackman ordered
Marine B and C to stop administering first aid to the insurgent and eventually
shot the man in the chest with a 9 mm pistol, saying:
"Shuffle off this mortal coil, you
cunt. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."Obviously this doesn’t go
anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."
None of the marines present mentioned this to
superiors, but a year later, video evidence found from Marine B's helmet camera
by a chance inspection of footage, brought the incident to light.
The Original Verdict
On 13 October 2012 the appellant, Corporal Watson
and Marine Hammond and two other marines known as Marine D and Marine E were
charged by the Service Prosecution Authority with murder, contrary to s.42 of
the Armed Forces Act 2006. That section makes it an offence if a person in the
armed forces does an act that is punishable by the law of England and Wales or,
if done in England and Wales, would be so punishable. The offence of murder or
manslaughter committed by a British citizen is punishable by the law of England
and Wales wherever committed as stated in R v Page.
On 8 November 2013, a Court Martial found the
appellant guilty of murder but acquitted Corporal Watson and Marine Hammond. On
6 December 2013 the Court Martial sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment
with a minimum term of 10 years in custody, a reduction to the ranks and
dismissal with disgrace from the Armed Forces. In 2014, his sentence term was
reduced to 8 years minimum in custody on appeal.
Appeal and Change in
Verdict
On Wednesday 15th March, Blackmans murder charge
was changed to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Evidence which has come to light regarding Blackman's mental state at the time
of the incident demonstrated elements of paranoia, extreme stress and sleep
deprivation.
Diminished Responsibility is a partial defence, set
out in S.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Upon a successful argument it
reduces the charge of murder to voluntary manslaughter. There are several
conditions that must be satisfied for the defence to succeed.
- An abnormality of mental
functioning caused by a recognised medical condition.
- Which provides an
explanation for the defendant’s acts or omissions in being party to the
killing.
- Which substantially impaired
his/her mental ability to either:
a) Understand the nature of
their conduct or
b) Form a rational judgement or
c) Exercise self–control
The Court decided that Blackman had an adjustment
disorder, combined with combat stress that explained his actions and
substantially impaired his mental ability to understand what he was doing, be
rational and control himself.
Other factors that the Court took into account were:
- Blackman had not received
full pre-deployment training; he had to take time out of training because
of his father’s death.
- There was powerful evidence
that members of the team under Blackman’s command were always on edge and
did not feel safe at night.
- The team had been hardest
hit by the insurgents; they were losing ground and were combat-weary.
- The team at CP Omar was
undermanned; the previous team had numbered 25; the team under the
appellant was 16.
- Ambushes by insurgents and
the threat of explosive devices were constant.
- The insurgents had inflicted
severe casualties and treated dead bodies callously.
- Blackman regarded himself as
responsible for his troops, particularly those with children (the appellant
had none); he therefore undertook more patrols and risks to himself so
that his troops could all get home safely.
- Blackman regarded himself as
easily identifiable and targeted by the insurgents. About a month before
the killing two grenades were thrown at the appellant by insurgents while
he was talking to Afghan civilians outside the camp. The grenades fell
into a nearby drainage ditch which funnelled the blast upwards, saving his
life.
I am not going to dismiss medical evidence, but the
fact it took years to come to light is concerning. Was it created by the
defence as a justification, or were the top military commanders in the area at
the time of the incident not telling the full story of the situation in CP
Taalanda?
Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions is a body of the
Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts, whose purpose is to provide minimum
protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of
respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts. They are a
series of treaties, on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war and
soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of
fighting.
Dr Philip Spoerri explained why they were created:
"...the decision to draft the
Geneva Conventions of 1949 was sealed by the tragedy of the Second World War
and that the conventions were intended to fill the gaps in international
humanitarian law exposed by the conflict."
The Conventions themselves, hold no punishment, yet
the First Geneva Convention calls on the Contracting Parties to "enact any
legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing,
or ordering to be committed," any of the following violations:
...willful killing, torture or inhumane
treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering
or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation
of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly.
Essentially, those that go far beyond the necessary
force or actions needed in war, should be punished by laws in their own country
that are intended to deal with these matters. In this case, s.42 of the armed
forces act enables the crime of murder to be tried against a soldier. In fact,
the armed forces act itself makes any crime in England and Wales a crime in
operations abroad.
A major issue in this case concerns enemy wounded.
According to the conventions, enemy wounded may not be attacked, but must be
collected and cared for, with the same access to medical treatment as the
State's own wounded. If not, this would be in violation of Geneva Convention I
Article 12 or the Conventions Common Article 3.
In my opinion, the Geneva Conventions were
introduced to stop needless killing in war. They were meant to be held to the
highest possible threshold, and Sergeant Blackman knowingly dismissed them. He
has broken the Articles above and should be punished severely for it.
My Opinion
I vehemently disagree with the Court of Appeals
decision to change Blackmans sentence of murder to manslaughter on grounds of
diminished responsibility.
I will refer to quotations from the original Court
Martial that I wish to elaborate on:
When [the appellant] found him he was
no longer a threat. Having removed his AK47, magazines and a grenade [the
appellant] caused him to be moved to a place where [the appellant] wanted to be
out of sight of [the] operational headquarters at Shahzad so that, to quote
what [the appellant] said,“PGSS can’t see what we are doing to him”.
Whether Mr Blackman was suffering from mental
illness or not, he clearly knew what he was doing was wrong. Verbally warning
his fellow marines to move the injured insurgent out of view of the
surveillance system. If Mr Blackman had any intention of helping this man at
all, he would not have needed to move him from the spot to administer
treatment. There was a clear intention to cause harm.
He was handled in a robust manner by
those under [the appellant’s]command clearly causing him additional pain and
[the appellant] did nothing to stop them from treating him in that way. When
out of view of the PGSS [the appellant] failed to ensure he was given
appropriate medical treatment quickly and then ordered those giving him some
first aid to stop.
Blackman clearly wanted to hurt the individual, who
was already gravely wounded by helicopter fire. By stopping medical aid, he
condemned a person who was no longer a threat to death and he knew this was the
case. Furthermore he was being a terrible example to his fellow soldiers.
When [the appellant was] sure the
Apache helicopter was out of sight, [the appellant] calmly discharged a 9
millimetre round into his chest from close range. [The appellant’s] suggestion
that [he] thought the insurgent was dead when [he] discharged the firearms
lacks any credibility and was clearly made up after [he] had been charged with
murder in an effort to concoct a defence.
Blackman manufactured a lie to cover up his act.
Again, he was more than aware that his actions were contrary to the Geneva
Conventions.
[The appellant] then told [his] patrol
they were not to say anything about what had just happened and [the appellant]
acknowledged what [he] had done by saying [he] had just broken the Geneva
Convention. The tone of calmness of [his] voice as [he] commented after [he]
had shot him were matter of fact and in that respect they were chilling.
This illustrated the mens rea of murder. He was not
in a confused state of mind on the video when deciding how to handle the
injured man, and shot him calmly and without hesitation.
Aggravating factors found by the Court Martial are
also highly damning:
"Third, the appellant’s actions
put at risk the lives of other British service personnel because his actions
would be used to radicalise others and encourage them both to fight the British
forces and to act more brutally towards them in retribution or reprisal.
In resistance movement and extremist cells, it is
often seen that serious retaliations are committed in response to brutal
attacks against them. For example, a twitter account reportedly associated
with Islamic State claims the Bastille Massacre, where 84 people died in
France, was a revenge attack for the killing of Abu Omar al-Shishani, a high
ranking member of IS. In 2010, the Kampala attacks by Al-Shabaab that killed 74
were claimed in retaliation for Ugandan support for an African Union mission in
Somalia. The reason we have limits is to separate us from those who go
extremes. If we escalate against them, they strike back harder.
Fourth, he was in charge of the patrol
and it was incumbent upon him to set the standards. He had abused his position
of trust by involving the other members of the patrol in covering up what had
been done and lying on his behalf."
Blackman had to be a role model to the troops under
his command. He failed at this, and committed an illegal act of savagery in
front of them. The standards of the Armed Forces should be held to the highest
possible degree. That is why the discipline of commanders is instilled so
heavily on troops.
"Some commentators and members of
the public have said that you should not have been prosecuted and that you have
not committed a crime because it was killing within a conflict. Some also
suggest it is legitimate to kill wounded enemy combatants because, as you said
after you shot the insurgent, it is nothing they wouldn’t do to British
casualties. Those commentators are very wrong: if the
British Armed Forces are not assiduous in complying with the laws of armed
conflict and international humanitarian law they would become no better than
the insurgents and terrorists they are fighting. Hearts and minds will
not be won if British service personnel act with brutality and savagery. If
they do not comply with the law they will quickly lose the support and
confidence of those they seek to protect, as well as the international
community. You and all Service personnel learn this throughout your training -
you demonstrated that you knew that then, because you tried to cover it up, and
you know it now."
This is one of the most important and valid
arguments the judge made and one I agree with wholly. Members of the public and
those not in the armed forces are not akin to the rules of warfare. The reason
we have rules is to separate us from the barbaric forces that we so often
regard as lower than us in standing on moral grounds. For example, would it be
right if the Taliban came to a village and killed people’s children, and in
response the British Army would retaliate by wiping out children of Taliban
soldiers? Furthermore, executing a wounded potential prisoner is an opportunity
lost. He could have Intel, could be educated against what he was doing and
maybe realise what he was doing was wrong.
However I will concede one issue that the judge in
the original case stated:
"Of course sitting in a court room
in middle England is a far cry from the brutality of the conflict in
Afghanistan"
I myself am not a soldier. I do not know or purport
to understand the stresses and life of combat personnel. I am only using the
facts given to me by the Courts and making a judgement based on these. However:
"...you have been judged here by a
Board made up of Service personnel who understand operational service because
they too have experienced it. That is one of the strengths of the Court Martial
system."
Blackman was judged not just by a judiciary
official, but by those in the army too. They understood what soldiers went
through day to day. They deigned Blackman to have committed murder and I accept
that judgement to be correct. No one else had the same lapse of judgement that
Blackman had, at least that has been recorded or found. They were at liberty to
make an example of Mr Blackman as the punishment for disgracing the armed
forces and the values of Britain.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe Blackman to be guilty of
murder. To me, the partial defence of diminished responsibility does not hold
up. He may have had combat stress and adjustment disorder as a recognised
condition, but why did it take 5 years to come to light and after 2 separate
appeals? I believe public pressure in this case had a big sway on those passing
judgement and the funds raised by the campaign to free Blackman hired keener
legal minds. The Daily Mail referred to him as a hero. To me, heroes do not
execute the wounded and break centuries old international humanitarian
law.
However, it is not as if Blackman has been given
the all clear. He was still convicted of voluntary manslaughter, showing that
the Courts still believe he was guilty of a serious offence. Blackman is a
lucky man. Saved by a campaign based on nationalism and ignorance of the rules
of war, Blackman's story gives a dangerous precedent of challenging the very
nature of murder under international law. Is it right to say that because
Blackman wasn't in the right frame of mind, it's fine for him to break the Geneva
Conventions or shoot an unarmed man? The army are not executioners, they are soldiers. It is a difficult issue, but one that I am
comfortable with my assessment of.
References
R v Blackman (2012)
R v Alexander Wayne Blackman and
Secretary of State for Defence (2014)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1448694/terror-group-chief-urged-followers-to-run-over-the-filthy-french-just-two-years-earlier-as-jihadis-celebrate-nice-terror-attack/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/12/uganda-kampala-bombs-explosions-attacks
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/15/alexander-blackman-royal-marine-a-judges-quash-murder-conviction
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4315700/Appeal-Court-Judges-clear-Sgt-Alexander-Blackman.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sgt-alexander-blackman-the-case-for-and-against-the-royal-marine-who-murdered-a-wounded-unarmed-10508375.html
International Law, 4th edition, Malcolm
D Evans
Geneva Convention I
No comments:
Post a Comment