The Centre for Military Justice and supporting families with military inquests

The Centre for Military Justice (CMJ) is a small charity established in 2019 to provide legal advice, advocacy support and other assistance to people in the armed forces or their families, who have suffered bereavement, sexual violence, racism, or other abuse.  We are the only charity to provide this kind of service. We sit squarely outside the armed forces and the armed forces charitable sector, and we draw from our experience as independent human rights/equality/inquest lawyers.  One of our core objectives is to challenge the myths and misrepresentations that often feed the prevailing political narrative around human rights, equality and the rule of law, recognising that Government, certain think tanks and/or parts of the media have commonly relied upon the armed forces in support of arguments for deeply regressive legal reforms, such as the Overseas Operations Act 2021, the Northern Ireland (Legacy & Reconciliation) Act 2023  and the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998.  

We were founded by Des James, the father of Pte Cheryl James, one of four teenagers who died at Deepcut army barracks in 1995, amid allegations of bullying, sexual abuse and neglect. Following his daughter’s death, for almost 20 years Mr James was stonewalled by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in an astonishing display of what Bishop James Jones called the ‘patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ until he finally achieved the full inquest to which his family was entitled. He was only able to achieve that inquest because of the Human Rights Act, something he has talked about extensively in recent years. Like so many bereaved families, he found himself having to become a reluctant spokesperson for a cause, in his case against the prevalence of sexual abuse in the Army and the need to place limits on the military’s ability to investigate itself.

Like all bereaved families who lose their loved one in the context of state failure, military families have to endure unacceptable indignities, delays and frustrations as they attempt to find out what happened. The MoD often gives the impression of having little but contempt for the bereaved, once the family start asking difficult questions. Much is made of the fact that there is a specialist ‘bereavement cell’ for bereaved families in Defence, but in our experience it is staffed by individuals who are manifestly not qualified to work with bereaved or traumatised people and there is a strong expectation that the bereaved are to be grateful for the limited support and information that is benevolently provided to them. 

There are some additional factors that I think can make the bereaved military family’s experience unique. 

Often, an inquest overseen by a Coroner will be preceded by a Service Inquiry (SI), which is an internal inquiry run by the service branch, where evidence is taken on oath but from which the family is almost entirely excluded. No family I have ever represented has ever been permitted to attend a SI, hear the evidence, put questions or make representations to the panel. In self-inflicted deaths, service families may also feel demonised by the SI conclusions which appear keen to emphasise any perceived ‘issues’ within the family (that the family has had no meaningful opportunity to rebut). These SI reports are rightly published, but in such circumstances, where the family has been so excluded, this can be enormously painful. 

The deaths of some service personnel overseas can raise very complex and difficult issues, particularly where the deceased was serving alongside service personnel from other countries and where those countries may not wish to co-operate with the UK’s processes for investigating a death. In countries where the ability of the bereaved to bring a legal claim against the State is more restricted in the UK (such as in the US for example), to all intents and purposes this can leave the bereaved without any meaningful inquiry, few answers and no remedy. 

Disclosure processes in Coronial proceedings can be particularly extensive and laborious. As a minimum, in a service death there will usually be an extensive service file, a service (and possibly a civilian) medical record, service welfare notes, service police and/or civilian police files, SI transcripts, SI evidence, training records and lengthy policy documents. Extensive redaction processes can mean extraordinary delays before families are able to get access to these papers which can be alienating and incredibly distressing. These delays can also risk producing serious injustice. In a recent case involving a sudden death following allegations of very serious bullying, the MoD made Article 2 submissions suggesting (apparently based on the documents in their possession which had not yet been disclosed to the family), that there was no evidence of self-infliction and Article 2 was not engaged and there was therefore no need to investigate allegations of serious bullying prior to death. It transpired, when the material was eventually disclosed to the family, that all the time the MoD had been in possession of multiple documents suggesting the exact opposite, which was a clear and fundamental breach of the duty of candour. 

There is also the more difficult and nuanced question of how the bereaved or their loved one may have felt about the armed forces. While some service personnel undoubtedly will have felt frustration and exasperation at their service life, and their family may have no difficulty challenging and criticising the institution in the aftermath of their death, many others may not have felt that way and may have died still with strong feelings of loyalty and commitment to that institution, however flawed. This can make the experience of the bereaved who are left behind particularly complex and they can find the process of an inquest unexpected and bewildering in its adversarial and hostile nature.  

Cultural attitudes (by which I mean, harsh attitudes) inside the MoD towards those suffering with mental health problems or who are otherwise vulnerable, can be particularly distressing for families to come to terms with after a death. While the MoD has long maintained that it has a ‘zero tolerance’ attitude to bullying, the reality is often far removed from that laudable aim and learning of the distress and pain of someone trying to cope with bullying or poor mental health inside one of the State’s most closed institutions can be absolutely devastating for families. 

Some years ago, the then-head of the Defence Inquest Unit came to meet me and we discussed  the possibility of setting up ‘family listening days’, inspired by the pioneering work of the fantastic charity INQUEST. That manager did not stay long in post and, sadly, since then there has been no further interest in following up this proposal that would have provided an important outlet for the bereaved and an opportunity for learning for the MoD.

The CMJ recognises the traumatising impact of taking part in an inquest or other litigation in the aftermath of a death and we offer a referral and psychological assessment service for struggling clients in the hope that we may be able to help find them additional support.  Many clients need help not just with coping with the proceedings themselves, but with coping with the end of them. For some people, as in so many cases after a controversial death in any circumstances, throwing themselves into the inquest process after loss can be a way of looking after their loved one and it can be very difficult when that process comes to an end. 

In our experience, lots of bereaved military families want to help and support each other. Des James set up the CMJ because he wanted to be able to support other families going through similar loss, or young soldiers or women suffering sexual or other types of abuse.