Soldier injured in Lebanon loses claim for damages

A YOUNG soldier who was injured and suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after a no-warning mortar attack on an Irish peacekeeping post in Lebanon in which another soldier died has lost his High Court action for damages.

Ms Justice Mary Irvine ruled yesterday that the Defence Forces' care and attention for the safety of Pte Darren Clarke (28) and other troops in Lebanon at the time of the attack on May 31st, 1999, was "beyond reproach" and she dismissed Pte Clarke's claims that the Army was negligent as to his safety.

Those in command were "relentless and vigilant" in their efforts to support and defend the welfare of their troops on Unifil duties, she said. She also dismissed Pte Clarke's claim that the Army was negligent in relation to diagnosing and treating his post-traumatic stress disorder.

After judgment was delivered, Colm Ó hOisin SC, for the Minister for Defence and the State, applied for costs but the judge adjourned that issue to allow the sides consider her judgment.

Pte Clarke went to Lebanon in 1999 as part of the 85th Irish Battalion based at Post 6-42 near Brashit. While the soldiers were asleep in the early hours of May 31st, 1999, a mortar exploded in the Irish compound.

Pte Billy Kedian, who was waking up the soldiers to get them to bunkers, was killed, and Pte Ronnie Rush was seriously injured. Pte Clarke, who went to help Pte Rush, suffered significant shrapnel injuries.

The Army later said the Israeli-backed De Facto Forces had deliberately shelled Post 6-42 in an unprovoked and unprecedented no-warning attack.

The judge said it was accepted that even peacekeeping missions brought with them risks for the troops involved. The Defence Forces' duty of care was to take reasonable and practicable precautions to reduce the risk of Pte Clarke being wounded or killed, having regard to the activities in which the soldiers were engaged, and it was not obliged to use every device available to reduce risk.

Her task was to balance the risk of the occurrence of this incident against the steps to eliminate or reduce it. Pte Clarke had argued sandbags, T-walls and rubber curtaining should have been used to protect against such attacks, but even a bunker could not protect against a direct hit from a mortar.

Unannounced mortar attacks landing in Irish posts was a concept unknown to the Defence Forces in 1999, sandbags and T-walls were not used by other Unifil forces and would impede troops rushing to get to bunkers, and rubber curtaining was not known in 1999 as a method of protecting billets from shrapnel penetration, she said.

The Army's assessment of the risk of mortar attack was reasonable and the risk of injury to troops in Lebanon was kept under constant review, she found. The Defence Forces were not negligent in failing to increase protection for soldiers at Post 6-42 or in not directing the troops to go to bunkers when firing was first heard.

There was no negligence by the defence in relation to Pte Kedian's death or the injuries to Pte Clarke, she found.

The judge found there was no lack of due care by the defence in caring for Pte Clarke's mental health. She found the Army had an adequate system in place to seek to identify those most at risk of PTSD. If she was wrong about that, she believed it was highly probable Pte Clarke would not have disclosed his feelings in a way allowing him to be identified as a potential candidate for PTSD.

There was no dispute he suffered PTSD after the incident, that it was not diagnosed until 2002 and, if it had, he would have made an earlier recovery, she noted. It was clear he still experienced deep distress when confronted with the events of that day.