‘Lawfare’ claims are fearmongering
Last month, 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’. More particularly, it was stated that ‘Revolutionary Guard-sponsored “lawfare” [had become] a deliberate act of state subversion’. He added: ‘Hard to execute in the US but easy in Britain, 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 were 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.
This latest contribution must 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. These 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-coordinated campaign is under way.
Particular issue is taken with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which 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 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. They risk leading to the inevitable conclusion that opponents of the Troubles Bill and authors such as these would prefer we 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. Special forces stand accused of war crimes, presently under investigation by Haddon-Cave LJ – 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 Groundhog 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 and Emma Norton (director, Centre for Military Justice)
London SE22
Legal aid key to domestic violence goals
The government has committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. Achieving this will depend not only on policing and prevention, but on the continued availability of civil legal protection for those at risk.
The latest impact report from the National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV) demonstrates the scale of ongoing need. Each year, we support tens of thousands of referrals and help secure around 30% of all non-molestation orders granted in England and Wales. These orders are often the first legal safeguard available to survivors seeking to rebuild their lives.
However, the ability to obtain protection relies heavily on the willingness and capacity of family law solicitors to undertake legal aid work. Legal aid rates for civil work have remained largely unchanged since the mid-1990s, meaning that in real terms the value of this work has fallen significantly. Without sustainable legal aid funding, there is a real risk that fewer firms will be able to continue offering this vital service. The result could be reduced access to justice for victims of domestic abuse, particularly in rural areas where legal services are already more limited and barriers to support are greater.
Legal aid solicitors play a crucial role in translating legal rights into real-world protection. When survivors can access timely legal advice and representation, civil protection orders can be obtained swiftly and safely.
NCDV works closely with a national panel of family law solicitors who undertake this work daily, often under considerable pressure. For that reason, we are supporting the Law Society’s Legal Aid Means campaign, which seeks to build a wider understanding of the importance of sustainable legal aid funding.
If the government is serious about reducing violence against women and girls, it must ensure that the legal infrastructure supporting victims remains viable. Civil protection orders save lives, but they depend on a legal aid system that is able to function.
Charlotte Woodward
Head of training and development, National Centre for Domestic Violence, Guildford, Surrey
Abolish silk system
Your feature ‘Out ranked’ (13 March) discussed the shortcomings of the silk system. The ‘ideas for change’ and ‘suggested tweaks’ are all peripheral. None considers the abolition of the system as unnecessary and detrimental, as I advocated in a letter to the Gazette last year. Should this not also be seriously considered?
Dr Jonathan Lewis
Retired solicitor and judge, Pinner, Middlesex
Consider the client
I retired a long time ago, but I was interested to read about the squabble over interest received on client accounts. Surely, the first question that needs to be asked is what is best for the clients, without whom there would be no interest to argue about. I don’t see enough of that.
Michael Heneker
Reigate, Surrey
No comments yet