Hold Decision Makers Accountable
Our Armed Forces willingly serve our country, often in the most dangerous and challenging circumstances. They deserve fairness, justice and protection when carrying out their duties under lawful orders.
Right First Time UK is calling for stronger accountability throughout the chain of command and greater legal protection for soldiers acting in good faith.
Why This Campaign Matters
When military operations go wrong, attention often focuses on those serving on the front line. However, the decisions leading to military action are made much higher up the chain of command.
Prime Ministers, Government Ministers, senior military commanders and operational leaders make decisions based upon intelligence, legal advice and strategic planning. Those decisions can directly affect the lives of both military personnel and civilians.
We believe accountability should exist throughout the entire chain of command.
🪖 Protect Soldiers Acting Under Lawful Orders
Our Armed Forces should never become the first people blamed when they have acted in good faith under lawful orders and within UK and international law.
Where failures arise from poor planning, inaccurate intelligence, negligent leadership or unlawful decisions made higher up the chain of command, investigations should examine responsibility at every level—not just the actions of those on the front line.
Soldiers have a legal duty to obey lawful orders. We believe they should receive greater legal protection when carrying out those duties in good faith.
🏛️ Accountability Should Begin at the Top
- Prime Ministers
- Cabinet Ministers
- Defence Secretaries
- Senior Military Commanders
- Operational Commanders
Those making the decisions should also carry responsibility for the consequences of those decisions where the evidence and law support it. Accountability should not stop at the lowest rank involved simply because senior decisions were made further away from the battlefield.
This campaign wants investigations to follow the evidence all the way to the top: through operational command, senior military leadership, the Ministry of Defence, Cabinet-level decision making and, where relevant, the Prime Minister and other Ministers who authorised, directed or maintained an operation.
Accountability Must Follow the Whole Chain of Command
Right First Time UK's campaign position is that investigations should not begin with an assumption that the person physically closest to an incident carries all responsibility. Evidence should be followed upwards as well as downwards: who gave the order, who approved the plan, what intelligence was relied on, what legal advice was provided, what risks were identified, what warnings were ignored, what resources were provided and who had the authority to stop or change the operation.
What the Law Already Says About Orders
Lawful orders must be obeyed
Section 12 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 makes intentional or reckless disobedience of a lawful command a service offence. The statutory wording is important: the duty is to obey a lawful command, not simply any instruction given by a superior.
Armed Forces Act 2006 →Manifestly unlawful orders must not be obeyed
MOD legal doctrine states that UK personnel must obey lawful orders but are under a legal duty not to obey a manifestly unlawful order. A service person who carries out a manifestly unlawful order may still be personally responsible.
Law of Armed Conflict Manual →Command Responsibility: Senior Leaders Can Carry Legal Responsibility Too
UK law already recognises the concept of command responsibility for the most serious international crimes. Section 65 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 provides that a military commander, or someone effectively acting as one, can be responsible for crimes committed by forces under their effective command and control where the commander knew, or in the circumstances should have known, that crimes were being committed or were about to be committed and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent, repress or report them.
Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court contains the corresponding international rule on responsibility of commanders and other superiors. It is not a rule that makes every senior officer automatically responsible for everything below them; it requires specific legal tests concerning effective control, knowledge and failure to take necessary and reasonable measures.
ICC Act 2001 — section 65 → Rome Statute — Article 28 →Political Decisions and Strategic Planning Also Matter
Military action can be shaped long before a front-line soldier receives an order. Decisions about whether to enter a conflict, the strategic objective, intelligence assessments, legal advice, force levels, equipment, detention policy, rules of engagement and post-conflict planning may be made by Ministers, senior officials and senior commanders.
The Iraq Inquiry is a major UK example of scrutiny reaching senior political and military decision-making. The Inquiry examined the UK's involvement in Iraq from 2001 to 2009. Its findings criticised important parts of the decision-making process and post-conflict planning, including insufficiently formal decision making and inadequate preparation for known post-conflict risks.
That does not mean every strategic failure is a criminal offence. Political accountability, administrative failure, negligence, service-law responsibility and criminal responsibility are different questions and must be assessed under the correct legal test.
Iraq Inquiry report →Protection for Personnel and Veterans Already Exists — But It Is Not Absolute
The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 introduced additional protections for service personnel and veterans facing possible proceedings arising from historical overseas operations. The legislation requires the operational context and other specified factors to be considered in certain prosecution decisions and civil claims.
Those protections do not amount to complete immunity. Government guidance confirms that serious allegations can still be prosecuted where appropriate, and special protections do not apply in the same way to allegations including torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Overseas Operations Act guidance →What a Full-Chain Investigation Should Ask
Orders and authority
- Who issued the order?
- Who approved it?
- Was it lawful?
- Was the scope clear to those expected to carry it out?
Intelligence and legal advice
- What intelligence supported the decision?
- Were doubts or competing assessments disclosed?
- What legal advice was available?
- Were restrictions or warnings properly communicated?
Planning and resources
- Were personnel adequately trained and equipped?
- Were foreseeable risks planned for?
- Were troop levels, medical support and intelligence sufficient?
- Did senior decisions create avoidable pressure on those carrying out the operation?
Knowledge and response
- What did commanders and Ministers know, and when?
- Were warnings escalated?
- Were repeated problems allowed to continue?
- Did those with authority take reasonable action to prevent further harm?
What This Campaign Is Asking Parliament to Review
- Whether existing investigations consistently examine responsibility above the tactical level.
- Whether senior military and political decision-making is recorded clearly enough to allow later scrutiny.
- Whether service personnel acting lawfully and in good faith receive adequate legal, welfare and representation support.
- Whether repeated investigations without significant new evidence are handled fairly and proportionately.
- Whether current law provides clear enough routes for holding commanders and senior decision-makers responsible when the legal tests for responsibility are met.
- Whether major operational failures should trigger an independent review of strategic, ministerial and command decisions rather than focusing only on individual incidents.
The campaign's aim is not to pre-judge any individual. It is to make sure accountability can travel upwards as well as downwards, and that the people who carry out lawful orders are not left to carry responsibility for failures that were created by decisions taken far above them.
📢 Right First Time UK's Calls
⚖️ Our Principles
📜 Our Message
"Those who give the orders should carry responsibility for those orders."
"Those who plan military operations should be accountable for their decisions."
"Those who serve their country in good faith deserve fairness, protection and justice."
✍️ Our Call to Parliament
Right First Time UK calls upon the UK Government and Parliament to review whether current legislation provides sufficient protection for soldiers acting lawfully, while ensuring appropriate accountability for senior military leaders and political decision makers whose decisions lead to military operations — including scrutiny at Cabinet and Prime Ministerial level where the evidence and applicable law require it.
We believe responsibility should be examined across the full chain of command, helping safeguard those who serve while maintaining justice, transparency and public confidence.
Support the Campaign
If you are a serving member of the Armed Forces, a veteran, a military family, or a member of the public who believes in fairness and accountability, we invite you to support this campaign.
Share Your Experience