Bici v Ministry of Defence [2004] EWHC 786 (QB) (07 April 2004)

Two Kosovar Albanians were shot by British soldiers during UN peacekeeping operations in Kosovo. The soldiers claimed self-defence, alleging the deceased aimed a weapon at them. The court rejected this defence, finding no reasonable grounds for such belief, and held the Ministry of Defence vicariously liable in negligence and trespass.

Facts

On 2 July 1999, during UN peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, three British soldiers shot at a car carrying Kosovar Albanian civilians celebrating Kosovo National Day. Fahri Bici, who was on the car roof with a Kalashnikov, was killed along with another passenger. The first claimant, Mohamet Bici, was struck by a bullet in the face, and the second claimant, Skender Bici, claimed psychiatric injury from witnessing the incident. The soldiers asserted they acted in self-defence, believing Fahri Bici was aiming his weapon at them.

Issues

Primary Issue

Whether the soldiers had reasonable grounds to believe they were being threatened and were therefore acting in lawful self-defence.

Secondary Issues

Whether combat immunity applied to bar the claims; whether the soldiers owed a duty of care to the claimants; whether the claimants were contributorily negligent.

Judgment

Mr Justice Elias rejected the self-defence claim. The forensic evidence demonstrated that the bullet trajectory through Fahri Bici’s body was inconsistent with him having turned to aim at the soldiers. The pathologists agreed that had Fahri been pointing the gun backwards, the weapon would likely have fallen to the ground rather than remaining on the car roof. Multiple independent witnesses testified that Fahri never turned to face the soldiers or aimed his rifle at them.

The court held that combat immunity did not apply, as the soldiers were performing policing and peacekeeping functions rather than engaged in combat operations. The judge found that soldiers in peacekeeping roles owe the same duties of care as ordinary citizens.

On contributory negligence, the court held that even if the claimants acted imprudently by travelling with someone firing a weapon, their conduct was vastly outweighed by the soldiers’ unjustified deliberate actions.

Implications

This case establishes important principles regarding military liability during peacekeeping operations. It confirms that combat immunity is narrowly construed and does not extend to routine policing functions, even in volatile environments. The judgment reinforces that soldiers engaged in peacekeeping owe ordinary duties of care to civilians. The case also applies the doctrine of transferred malice in trespass claims, following Livingstone v Ministry of Defence, allowing recovery where a claimant was unintentionally injured by deliberate wrongful conduct directed at another person.

Verdict: Judgment for the claimants. The Ministry of Defence was held vicariously liable in negligence to both claimants, and additionally in trespass to the person (battery) to the first claimant, Mohamet Bici. The self-defence claim was rejected, combat immunity did not apply, and contributory negligence was not established. Damages to be assessed at a separate hearing.

Source: Bici v Ministry of Defence [2004] EWHC 786 (QB) (07 April 2004)