Speculation is mounting as to whether Tony Blair could be subject to legal action following the Chilcot report.
Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry, seven years in the making, covers Britain’s role in the 2003 Iraq conflict from 2001 to 2009. Its 2.6m words and 12 volumes contains sharp criticism of Blair’s decision to commit British troops to the action, and the UK government’s “wholly inadequate” planning for post-conflict rebuilding of Iraq.
It found that Blair’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction—one of the main catalysts for Britain engaging in the conflict—were “grounded in what Mr Blair believed, rather than in the judgments which the joint intelligence committee had actually reached in its assessment of the intelligence”.
Some people, including certain senior politicians, have called for Blair to be investigated by the International Criminal Court for a crime of aggression.
Others have suggested he could face charges of misconduct in public office. Lord Macdonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions, stoked these flames in an interview with The Times this week where he said Blair had behaved in a “disreputable way to win tainted legal backing for massive armed conflict, it seems very likely that Mr Blair roundly abused the trust placed in him by the public”.
The solicitor representing families of UK military service personnel who died during the conflict is Matthew Jury, partner at McCue & Partners. Jury has represented victims of terrorism perpetrated by the Real IRA, Hamas and Muammar Gaddafi. He has not commented on whether, or what legal action may be brought post-Chilcot.
Last year, Jury represented the families in their call for the Chilcot report to be published. He argued on their behalf that Sir John was misinterpreting the “Maxwellisation” process—that an inquiry should not explicitly or significantly criticise an individual without sending that person a warning letter and giving them a reasonable time to respond.
Writing in NLJ this week, Phillip Patterson of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, says the Chilcot report has become synonymous as much with the length of time it has taken to produce, as with its careful and detailed findings on a range of issues relating to the Iraq War.
However, he says: "It would be wrong for Sir John Chilcot to be criticised too strongly for the delays in the publication of his report in light of the now widespread recognition that warning letters represent a significant burden for public inquiries. Clearly there is appetite for reform in this area. Quite whether and how such reform should proceed will depend heavily upon how legislators weigh the desire to preserve fairness for participants with the need to conclude inquiries in a timely manner and at proportionate cost."
