BAHA-20 Accepted

Doctrine Usability Review

Baha Mousa Inquiry · The Report of the Baha Mousa Inquiry - Volume III · Issued 8 September 2011 · Addressed to: Ministry of Defence

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation

The MoD should ensure that Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) reviews whether its protocols for layout and pagination of joint doctrine really serve the end user.

Baha Mousa Inquiry, The Report of the Baha Mousa Inquiry - Volume III · 8 Sep 2011 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:

- The Defence Secretary stated on 8 September 2011 that the government accepted this recommendation and stated that the Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) had reviewed and improved the layout and accessibility of joint doctrine publications (Government Response to the Baha Mousa Inquiry, Ministry of Defence, September 2011).
- Joint Doctrine Publication 1-10 (Captured Persons) was first published on 1 October 2011, shortly after the Baha Mousa Inquiry report (8 September 2011), and has since been updated to a Fourth Edition published 28 September 2020, incorporating lessons from the Baha Mousa and Al-Sweady inquiries as well as Supreme Court judgments (JDP 1-10, Fourth Edition, Ministry of Defence, September 2020).

Response — verbatim from government

Ministry of Defence

Accepted. DCDC has reviewed and improved the layout and accessibility of joint doctrine publications.

Ministry of Defence · 8 Sep 2011 Written response →

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

No published activity has been recorded against this recommendation yet.

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.