Sending troops on patrol or into battle with defective equipment could be a breach of human rights, a High Court judge ruled on Friday.

Mr Justice Andrew Collins was giving guidance on the human rights implications surrounding the death of British soldiers during active service abroad.

He said that although the soldiers may be fighting in countries where human rights provisions do not apply, servicemen can nevertheless be entitled to those rights.

Collins also gave guidance on the implications of soldiers not being properly equipped, saying it could put the government in breach of the right to life provisions.

He said these provisions imposed positive obligations to protect life, and where there was a known risk to life which the state could take steps to avoid or to minimise such steps should be taken.

What could reasonably be done would depend on the circumstances of the particular case, he said.

"The soldier does not lose all protection simply because he is in hostile territory carrying out dangerous operations," he said.

"For example, to send a soldier out on patrol or, indeed, into battle with defective equipment could constitute a breach of Article 2 (the right to life provisions)."

His ruling came during a request for military inquest guidelines in the case of Private Jason Smith, who died in Iraq at the age of 32.

An inquest into his death in November 2006 found he had died of heatstroke.

The deputy coroner of Oxfordshire, Andrew Walker, said Smith's death was "caused by a serious failure to recognise and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate".

His ruling and comments later came under attack from lawyers for Defence Secretary Des Browne at a hearing in the High Court last month.

They claimed coroners' criticisms of the Ministry of Defence on the death of soldiers should be curbed.

Responding to Friday's guidance, the MoD said in a statement: "The Ministry of Defence does not consider that this judgement reflects legal precedents on the application of Article 1 and Article 2 of the ECHR.

"We have been granted leave to appeal against this judgment to the Court of Appeal.

"It would not be appropriate to comment further while this appeal is in progress."

It added, with reference to coroners' language: "The Ministry of Defence sought - and has now received - clarification on a point of law.

"At no point was the MoD attempting to prevent coroners from undertaking independent investigations and making their findings public."

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "It should not take a court ruling for the government to realise that it has a responsibility and a moral obligation to ensure that when it sends troops into harm's way, they are the best trained and best equipped in the world."