Iraq inquiry: dealing with the law and Lord Goldsmith

Lord Goldsmith got a handshake, chat or squeezed arm from three of the panellists on the Iraq inquiry at the end of his evidence session.

Sir Roderic Lyne, Sir Laurence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert each wandered over for the briefest of words just before Lord Goldsmith left the room.

I don’t know whether this has happened to a witness before. I haven’t seen it.

It is of course difficult when you have met people, maybe even know them well, and you are in the awkward position of sitting across from them in a formal tribunal situation like this.

Sir Roderic Lyne, “tireless Sir Roderic” as Sir John Chilcot called him today, is supposed to have jogged with a previous witness, Alastair Campbell.

Today, Sir Roderic was sharp as ever in his questioning but showing a previously concealed humility in the face of a top strength lawyer.

Some will say today proved that the panel was not equipped to deal with an advocate and the issue of legality.

You get the impression that though this inquiry is bound to have very strong words to say about the process towards legal certification, there is little or no chance of this inquiry ruling that war was illegal.

Reading between the lines of the questioning, hazardous business, I think the panellists accept the “revival” argument which, as Lord Goldsmith, pointed out, the recent Dutch inquiry never did.

There were, by the way, quite a few references to “frustration” with the government not making timely declassifications of documents, I assume we would have got Lord Goldsmith’s two earlier draft opinions on legality today.

The government is being careful not to refuse to release stuff the inquiry wants but simply failing to come to a decision on document release in time for the key public evidence sessions, sneaky or incompetent?