The Ministry of Defence has admitted it does not have a dedicated team to investigate civilian casualties caused by British military operations.
Critics argue that this shows the UK‘s ongoing failure to take full responsibility for the human cost of its wars.
In response to a Freedom of Information request submitted by London-based charity Action on Armed Violence and seen by Declassified, the MoD confirmed it does not currently have a specific branch tasked solely with assessing and investigating allegations of civilian harm.
This admission comes despite years of criticism over Britain’s lack of transparency and accountability when civilians are harmed during military operations abroad.
Earlier in 2024, the Royal Air Force refused to disclose casualty figures from Rishi Sunak’s airstrikes in Yemen. Citing national security and the sensitivity of targeting methods, the RAF declined to provide any data. No independent verification was offered to support claims that civilian harm had been avoided.
The MoD maintains that the UK’s strikes on Houthi military facilities were carried out in line with international law and resulted in no evidence of civilian casualties.
Although Keir Starmer’s government has not directly ordered strikes on Yemen, the RAF has supported United States operations by providing aerial refuelling. According to the Yemen Data Project, at least 28 civilians were killed and 66 injured in attacks on the Houthi group last month.
A leaked message from a former United States national security adviser indicated that civilians were deliberately targeted, with a missile destroying the home of a partner linked to an alleged Houthi figure.
Despite this, the UK government has pointed to American efforts to improve the monitoring of civilian harm. The MoD said it is closely following the developments under the US Department of Defense’s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, published in August 2022. This plan aims to improve oversight, reporting and accountability.
Civil society groups have called for Britain to introduce similar reforms, including better data collection, clearer guidance and the creation of a dedicated civilian protection unit.
In its response, the MoD stated that it complies with International Humanitarian Law principles, including necessity, proportionality, distinction and humanity.
Targeting experts are responsible for assessing whether the effects of military strikes align with those anticipated, including any unintended civilian casualties.
When credible allegations emerge, operational records are reviewed to check whether British forces were active in the area concerned. Legal claims are referred to the Directorate of Judicial Engagement Policy, which handles legacy investigations.
However, the effectiveness of these processes was questioned during a 2023 information tribunal. The case, brought by investigative group Airwars, sought further information about the death of a civilian in Syria on 26 March 2018. This remains one of the very few civilian deaths officially acknowledged by the MoD during its campaigns against Islamic State.
During the tribunal, senior MoD official Alexander Oliver was unable to clearly explain the standards of proof applied to civilian harm investigations, or whether allegations were being systematically recorded.
Emily Tripp, director of Airwars, criticised the lack of a dedicated civilian harm unit. She stressed that recent RAF operations in Syria and Yemen make it essential for the UK to track and respond properly to civilian harm allegations. She argued that Britain’s failure to establish such a system, despite decades of military engagement and pressure from civil society, shows how far the UK lags behind in protecting civilians.
Asked whether any changes had been made since the tribunal, the MoD declined to comment directly. However, it stated that it remains closely involved in reviewing the US Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response process and analysing its own procedures.
In May 2023, then armed forces minister James Heappey wrote to Liberal Democrat MP Richard Foord, stating that the government was committed to working with civil society organisations and learning from US reforms.
The MoD’s internal review may suggest a step towards change. However, campaigners and families affected by British military actions argue that the current system remains far from transparent.
The Ministry of Defence continues to claim that it seeks to minimise the risk of civilian casualties through rigorous targeting processes and remains committed to investigating all credible allegations.
