This week, the Daily Mail published an op-ed from an ex special forces officer suggesting that ‘the Iranians’ had been behind ‘London based bandwagon lawyers’ bringing claims against ‘our brave forces in Iraq’ and more particularly, that ‘the Revolutionary Guard-sponsored ‘lawfare’ (had become) a deliberate act of state subversion. Hard to execute in the US but easy in a Britain’, he added, ‘whose Army is being held accountable to human rights legislation that effectively outlaws most forms of combat.’
There is of course no evidence for this assertion, which would be laughable if the context was not so serious. There has not been a single case where the courts have second-guessed a commanding officer’s decisions on the battlefield, there is no evidence of ‘Iranian’ state involvement in any of the litigation that followed the Iraq War and our troops are, obviously, not permitted to commit war crimes in furtherance of their military objectives. But this latest contribution needs to be seen in its wider context – it follows numerous articles, opinion pieces and letters to editors (including by multiple retired senior officers) in recent months that have sought to warn of the “direct national security threat” posed by “lawfare” and the “use of legal process to fight political or ideological battles”. A well-co-ordinated campaign is underway.
Particular issue is taken with the Troubles Bill, the Bill that will address the unlawful efforts of the last government to deal with legacy issues in Northern Ireland, and with a number of older legal cases that have grappled with the complex issue of how to deal with alleged abuses perpetrated by British forces overseas. As ever, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is singled out for particular criticism, in particular its judgments mandating effective and independent investigations where alleged abuses occurred in parts of the world under British control. The net effect, it is argued, is of an “erosion of trust” in the ranks and of a “witch-hunt” against veterans. Such unchallenged contributions are fanning the flames of elderly veterans’ fears and risk leading to the inevitable conclusion that opponents of the Troubles Bill and authors such as these would prefer we should turn a blind eye to serious allegations of abuse where they are alleged to have been committed by British soldiers. Some may feel that the real thrust of the opposition to the Troubles Bill and the application of the ECHR comes from the present concerns over Afghanistan where special forces stand accused of war crimes, presently under investigation by LJ Haddon-Cave – an inquiry that would not exist but for the ECHR.
We have been here many times before. Evidence-based reasoning is entirely absent from this ground-hog day debate. We now live in an age of accountability. That is a good thing, although it may be difficult and painful. Respect for the law and human rights would have prevented atrocities from Londonderry to Basra as well as inside the darker parts of the Army that some would prefer to remain hidden. That is good for the service personnel we send out to fight and good for those for whom our forces become responsible when on operations.
Brig (Ret’d) John Donnelly CBE
Lt Col (Ret’d) the Reverend Nicholas Mercer
Emma Norton, Director, Centre for Military Justice
This letter was published in the Law Society Gazette on 13/04/26