Iraq inquiry: the word "unlawful" hovers over the QEII centre

We’ve had generals and ambassadors, mandarins and spooks; today it’s the turn of the lawyers (oh, and Margaret Beckett). Six hours of evidence, four witnesses, one key question: was the invasion of Iraq legal or did it amount to a war of aggression?

First up is Sir Michael Wood, FCO legal adviser 2001-06, followed by David Brummell who was legal secretary to the “law officers” (that’s the Attorney General and the Solicitor General) 2001-04.

The afternoon brings Wood’s former deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who famously resigned from the FCO over the issue, and the aforementioned Beckett.

There’s more on the witnesses and their relevance to the inquiry here.

If today “works” it should neatly set the scene for tomorrow’s appearance by the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. He’ll be asked why he issued Blair with two eve-of-war legal memos on whether the war would be legal without a new UN Security Council resolution.

The first one was lengthy and ambivalent; 10 days later a shorter one concluded that the use of force was legal but failed to mention the initial caveats.

Was it a measured, lawyerly re-analysis of the facts or, as some have alleged, was he pressured into changing his mind by Number 10?

As we now know not all the Cabinet even got to see that first memo – expect to hear a great deal more on that from Clare Short next Tuesday…

Live tweets from 10h00 at twitter.com/iraqinquiryblog.