Iraq inquiry focuses on Blair-Goldsmith relationship
The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war has focused attention on what may be a fundamental conflict of interest in the role of the attorney general, top lawyers tell Channel 4 News.
In his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry on 21 January, former prime minister Tony Blair returned to the question of his relationship with Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
In a written submission to the inquiry, Mr Blair details the evolution of Lord Goldsmith’s view on whether or not UN resolution 1441 authorised the use of force against Iraq. He also asserts that it would have been “wholly pointless” to try to pressurise Lord Goldsmith since “He is a British barrister through and through.”
Mr Blair told the hearing he had viewed as “provisional” the attorney general’s advice that a further UN resolution was required before an attack on Iraq. That was because he believed it would be influenced subsequently by what was said in the course of negotiations on 1441.
Conflict of interest
But Louise Christian of leading civil liberties legal practice Christian Khan believes the former prime minister’s decision to ignore “provisional” advice points to a fundamental conflict at the heart of the attorney general’s role in this country.
She told Channel 4 News: “When a prime minister ignores the advice of the most senior government lawyer in deciding whether or not to take the country to war, and in consequence engages on a war which is unlawful under international law, any protection which the legal advice would have afforded him in, for example, a prosecution in the International Criminal Court would be lost.
The whole office of attorney general poses a very big conflict of interest problem. Louse Christian of Christian Khan
“The problem for Goldsmith,” according to Ms Christian “was that the whole office of attorney general poses a very big conflict of interest problem. The Solicitor Rules state that a solicitor must decline to act for a client where he holds a public office, which means that he is unable to give impartial advice.
“But this was precisely the position which Goldsmith was in. He was a member of the Blair government, had been appointed by it, and was bound by collective Cabinet responsibility – but was also supposed to be giving impartial and independent advice.”
Blair’s ‘old pal’
International lawyer Phil Shiner, who leads the team at Public Interest Lawyers, asks why Tony Blair nominated Lord Goldsmith to be his chief legal officer, only to ignore his advice.
“Blair needs to make his mind up about his old pal Goldsmith,” says Mr Shiner. “If he really thinks Goldsmith was among ‘the top 10 lawyers in the country’, why did he not accept his 13-page advice of 7 March 2003 ‘that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the user of force’?
Blair needs to make up his mind about his old pal Goldsmith. Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers
“We all know that Goldsmith was then sidelined and put under intense pressure to take the unprecedented step of binning his lengthy advice and replacing it with the 337-word statement to Parliament of 17 March 2003 that now gave the green light for war.”
In the view of Michael Mansfield QC, of Tooks Chambers, it was unacceptable that Lord Goldsmith was so easily sidelined in the run-up to war. “To say now he felt uncomfortable – for goodness sake! He had an obligation, in a way, to the British public. It’s his job to ensure that he isn’t sidelined and that public statements are not made that are not true.”
Nailing the truth
For all three lawyers, it is part of the Iraq inquiry‘s responsibility to address issues arising from the relationship between the prime minister and the attorney general. “I can only hope that Chilcot, even without the assistance of his own legal team, can unequivocally nail the truth on these and other matters,” says Phil Shiner.
Michael Mansfield believes: “They have enough material, it seems to me, that they can come to some striking and considered conclusions.”
And Louise Christian is unequivocal: “One thing which really should be addressed in future is whether the government’s most senior lawyer should be allowed to be a member of it.”