Tony Blair could still be put in the dock over Iraq War
Tony Blair still faces being dragged before the courts for leading Britain into the disastrous Iraq War.
Leading barristers representing bereaved families of British troops killed in the controversial conflict believe there is evidence the ex-prime minister committed ‘misfeasance in public office’.
The legal team has gone through the 2.6million-word, 12-volume Chilcot Report into the invasion of Iraq with a fine-tooth comb for the past eight months.
Leading barristers representing bereaved families of British troops killed during the Iraq War believe Tony Blair could still be taken to court for 'misfeasance in public office'
They now conclude there is a strong case Mr Blair misled Parliament to justify the catastrophic 2003 war, which cost the lives of 179 UK personnel.
The development comes after it emerged that the Attorney General is seeking to block a separate attempt to bring legal action against the former prime minister over the conflict.
Relatives of British troops who died in Iraq believe Mr Blair should be hauled before the courts for taking part in the US-led invasion under the false pretext that Saddam Hussein’s regime was harbouring weapons of mass destruction.
Their lawyers are seeking to build a civil case against the former Labour leader and other Whitehall officials.
The legal case has been funded with the help of generous Daily Mail readers, who raised £150,000 in just two weeks in a bid to bring them to justice. More than 5,000 members of the public dipped into their pockets to help the cause.
Barristers are now in the process of studying the impact of a series of recent rulings to determine whether any court proceedings can begin.
The legal team has gone through the 2.6million-word, 12-volume Chilcot Report into the invasion of Iraq with a fine-tooth comb for the past eight months. They now conclude there is a strong case Mr Blair misled Parliament to justify the catastrophic 2003 war, which cost the lives of 179 UK personnel
In a bid to give themselves the best possible chance of winning a case, they must assess the implications of a string of ‘significant court judgements’ in 2016, including the Supreme Court’s ruling on Brexit in January.
In that case, the judges stated that Prime Minister Theresa May could not trigger the formal two-year Article 50 process of quitting the European Union without a vote in Parliament – and not simply use the Royal Prerogative to force the measure through.
In 2003, it was understood that Mr Blair’s Government could have used the prerogative to go to war, but triggered it after putting the issue to a controversial Parliamentary vote.
Relatives of British troops who died in Iraq believe Mr Blair should be hauled before the courts for taking part in the US-led invasion under the false pretext that Saddam Hussein’s regime was harbouring weapons of mass destruction
Reg Keys, whose son Lance Corporal Tom Keys was murdered by an Iraqi mob in an ambush weeks after the invasion, and Roger Bacon, whose son Matthew, a major in the Intelligence Corps, was killed in a roadside bomb in 2005, said in a statement: ‘We are pleased that our legal team has confirmed that the evidence supports the case that certain state officials may be liable for wrongdoing and, in particular, misfeasance in public office.
‘However, counsel have identified an issue of great constitutional importance that must be fully and carefully assessed before we can issue any proceedings. All this has to be taken into account and our legal arguments finalised before we can take the next step.’
Roger Bacon said: ‘The public have been truly wonderful in their support in our determination to get those responsible, in particular Tony Blair, into court to answer for their actions in taking us into the Iraq war. The families whose loved ones died because of this monumental catastrophe have to live with the consequences every single day of our lives. It is a hard road we are taking with no guarantees of success but for our peace of mind, for the great British public who have shown so much support and in memory of our loved ones we must do everything we can to get the justice we believe the country needs.’
The legal case has been funded with the help of generous Daily Mail readers, who raised £150,000 in just two weeks in a bid to bring them to justice. More than 5,000 members of the public dipped into their pockets to help the cause
Matthew Jury, of law firm McCue and Partners, which is representing the families, said: ‘Having spent the past months analysing the report, we can confirm that the evidence supports the case that certain state officials might have acted unlawfully.
‘However, given the significance of this case to the families and the public we are approaching every step with the utmost care.’
The families are pursuing a civil case because the International Criminal Court has refused to take action, the UK authorities will not bring a criminal prosecutions, and an attempt by MPs to name -and shame Mr Blair will not result in convictions.
Sir John Chilcot’s damning 2.6million-word report blasted Mr Blair for rushing into a catastrophic conflict on the back of flawed intelligence and amid questions over its legality, and for failing to plan for the aftermath of the invasion
Sir John Chilcot’s damning 2.6million-word report blasted Mr Blair for rushing into a catastrophic conflict on the back of flawed intelligence and amid questions over its legality, and for failing to plan for the aftermath of the invasion.
Yesterday (MON) the Mail told how Britain’s top law officer has intervened to try to block a separate attempt to haul Mr Blair to court over the Iraq War.
Attorney General Jeremy Wright has formally asked for a bid by General Abdul-Wahid Shannan ar-Ribat, former chief of staff of the Iraqi army, to prosecute the former prime minister to be rejected.
He wants the former Labour leader to be convicted of the crime of ‘aggression’ in a British court.
Mr Blair insists he acted in good faith based on the intelligence available to him in the run-up to the war. He claimed the Chilcot Report showed there was no secret plan to invade Iraq and Parliament had not been misled
Mr Ribat is seeking a judicial review of district judge Michael Snow’s decision last November that Mr Blair had ‘immunity’ from criminal prosecution.
But Mr Wright, a Tory MP, has formally asked for the case to be rejected, partly because the crime of aggression does not exist in English law. This position has been backed by the law lords.
In papers submitted to the court, the Attorney General said it was for Parliament to decide what counts as a criminal offence in the UK, not the courts.
Mr Blair insists he acted in good faith based on the intelligence available to him in the run-up to the war.
He claimed the Chilcot Report showed there was no secret plan to invade Iraq and Parliament had not been misled.