Downing Street Says » Legality of War

Asked if the Government had any response to the charge that there was a "clear breach" of the Ministerial Code under Section Two that a full explanation of any legal advice should be attached to a written answer given to a Cabinet Minister, the PMOS said that there was a misunderstanding about what actually happened. The Attorney General had briefed his Cabinet colleagues orally, and answered questions orally, and there was not a written memorandum sent round. Therefore the Ministerial Code did not apply in the way that was being suggested.

Put to him that at the Cabinet meeting, as Clare Short had claimed, everyone was given a two page Parliamentary answer that had summarised the legal advice, the PMOS replied that the written answer was not a summary, but rather, was the Attorney General’s view. The PMOS used the example of a similar situation where the Lord Chancellor had given his explanation of his advice on the civil marriage, but not a summary, however.

Put to him that he was "splitting hairs" as the copy of the answer put round at Cabinet was a paper as defined by the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said it was not. There was a clear distinction made by lawyers between an expression of views and an explanation, and a summary of legal advice.

Asked for an explanation that during a written answer last November, the Attorney General had said in the House of Lords that the written answer was "a summary" of his legal opinion, the PMOS said he was not aware of the comments and would need to look into it.

Asked if there was "official written record" of the Attorney General’s advice to the Government, the PMOS replied that the Attorney General had given his advice in the normal way. Normal conventions applied to that advice, but the PMOS was not going to discuss how the advice was given.

Put to him that although it was not a written document, presumably it would have been minuted, the PMOS said it was not equivalent to a summary or memorandum.

Asked if something would ever be available, perhaps under the Thirty Year Rule, the PMOS replied the usual convention applied to the Attorney General’s advice, which were that we did not disclose it.

Asked to clarify again that the "paper" was in fact a written answer, and therefore not subject to minuting, did that not breach the "spirit" of the Ministerial Code, the PMOS said: no, it did not. The Cabinet had discussed Iraq 24 times in the year before the conflict. It was a not matter, therefore, that had not been the subject of discussion.

5 Comments »

If there is nothing ‘dodgy’ to hide then we would have had an answer by now.

The more the government try to hide the easier it is to believe that the war was illegal.

I’m just waiting for the War Crimes Tribunal to make decisions on the numerous submissions for TB to be tried as a war criminal. They seem to be dragging their feet a bit on this one – I wonder why……
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 9 Mar 2005 on 9:55 pm | Link
Someone’s obviously given the order to burn certain bits of paper…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2005 on 9:56 pm | Link
We know the war was illegal already — Britain was not under imminent attack by Iraq, and there was no UN resolution legalizing it. On the latter point, I may be naive to accept the assurances made at the time that the 1441 resolution was voted on that it was not an authorization for war, but then I’m not a Bliar’s lawyer.

This illegality of this war is absolutely without doubt. Put it into a smaller context: if you have a dead body on the street with a knife wound to the chest of a man who was evidently unarmed, you know this was an illegal killing. There are legal killings — they happen in an execution chamber after due lawful process, etc. And there are legal killings in self-defence. Since dangerous psi-powers don’t exist outside of the X-files, an observer is going to want to see a weapon for that story not to be laughed at.

The purpose of seeing this legal advice is not to prove that the war was illegal, but to prove that Blair *knew* this war was illegal. That makes him not guilty of a mistake, but just guilty full stop.
Comment by Julian Todd — 10 Mar 2005 on 11:13 am | Link
There might be another reason for this stone walling, besides the possibility that there was no final written advice or that is was equivocal, and that is that an ‘illegal’ war might invite massive claims for damages from the public purse – that’s us.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 10 Mar 2005 on 11:33 am | Link
(sorry, pressed the wrong button. Last comment shouldn’t be reported.)

Last time I checked, GB wasn’t a Limited Liability Company, therefore the voters who are supposedly in authority of this organization are ultimately liable for all its wrongdoings. That’s how it should be. You can’t not have that, while demanding that Iraq is still liable for all the international debt loaned to it during when it was under the control of a dictator.
Comment by Julian Todd — 10 Mar 2005 on 12:10 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, March 9, 2005

Legality of War

5 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries