Sir Keir Starmer campaigned for “mandatory” investigations into Iraq war veterans, newly unearthed court documents have revealed.
Within the files, the Prime Minister established the legal foundations for hundreds of ultimately unsuccessful investigations into British military personnel operating in the country.
Sir Keir undertook this work pro bono, acting alongside Lord Hermer on behalf of interveners, including the Law Society of England and Wales, seeking to bring British troops under European human rights legislation.
Previously, No10 insisted Sir Keir was not “advocating for” those specifically bringing cases against soldiers, but instead for third parties whose role is to “assist the court on points of law, not to advocate for either side”.
During earlier stage of proceedings, Sir Keir and Lord Hermer said human rights laws should create a “mandatory duty” requiring the Government to investigate UK troops and provide compensation to Iraqi victims.
Their submission, on behalf of interveners in a case known as Al-Skeini and others in the 2005 Court of Appeal, argued the European Convention on Human Rights should extend to areas of Iraq under British control.
The legal filing stated no other international human rights instrument offered comparable investigation and remedy rights to those under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
It specifically cited “a mandatory duty on a State to facilitate an independent and impartial investigation into the alleged infringement, enforceable in domestic law” and “a mandatory duty on a State to provide compensation for proved infringements”.
Keir Starmer campaigned for ‘mandatory’ investigation into Iraq war veterans, unearthed legal documents reveal
|
GETTY
The filing, seen by The Telegraph, also said the ECHR would provide claimants “a right for the victim to seek redress (cf a state discretion to prosecute).”
It maintained such an application would serve an “important public purpose” that was “consistent with international human rights law and the stated policy of the UK government towards the people of Iraq”.
The Court of Appeal judge described Sir Keir’s arguments as “powerful” and “vividly illustrated,” yet ultimately rejected them.
A subsequent appeal to the House of Lords in 2007 also failed.
Legal filing maintained that applying the ECHR to British-occupied Iraq would serve an ‘important public purpose’
|
GETTY
Nevertheless, in 2011, Strasbourg judges determined the ECHR did apply in occupied Iraq, by which point Sir Keir had departed to become director of public prosecutions.
This ruling triggered a massive expansion of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which spent £60million over seven years without securing a single prosecution.
Reacting to the news, Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge said it left “no doubt that Keir Starmer fought – for free – to extend the jurisdiction of the ECHR to the British Armed Forces in Iraq”.
“It is beneath No 10 to try to deny something that is a matter of legal record,” he said.
No10 have insisted Sir Keir was not ‘advocating for’ those specifically bringing cases against soldiers
|
GETTY
“It’s no wonder that this Labour Government is pushing through his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and tearing up the protections for British Army veterans that Conservatives put in place.
“The Prime Minister puts international law above our nation’s interests, and it’s our veterans who are paying the price.”
A Downing Street spokesman told GB News: “As the Prime Minister made clear last week, he will never forget the courage, bravery and sacrifice made for their country by British servicemen and women.
“During his career, the Prime Minister has represented British soldiers who were killed in action and were wrongly accused.
“The Prime Minister did not represent the claimants in this case. He represented interveners, including the Law Society of England and Wales.
“The role of an intervener is to assist the court on points of law, not to advocate for either side.
“The Prime Minister was not involved in the subsequent case heard in the European Court of Human Rights.”
