This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/tony-blair-veterans-families-push-trial-iraq-is-it-possible
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Veterans' families push for Blair to face trial over Iraq – but is it possible? | Veterans' families push for Blair to face trial over Iraq – but is it possible? |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Veterans’ families, legal experts and members of parliament have raised the prospect that Tony Blair and former ministers in his government could be prosecuted for their role in the Iraq war following publication of the Chilcot report. | Veterans’ families, legal experts and members of parliament have raised the prospect that Tony Blair and former ministers in his government could be prosecuted for their role in the Iraq war following publication of the Chilcot report. |
| But calls for legal action have been tempered by recognition of the difficulties there will be in finding a court with jurisdiction to accept such controversial criminal cases. | But calls for legal action have been tempered by recognition of the difficulties there will be in finding a court with jurisdiction to accept such controversial criminal cases. |
| Relatives of the British soldiers who died in Iraq have led the chorus of pleas for the former prime minister to face justice in a courtroom. Melinda Ingram, whose RAF reservist son Chris Dunsmore died in 2007 just days before his 30th birthday, said: “If we go forward to a court case it would be interesting to see what the outcome is, and I think it should be tested in the court, but I don’t know if that’s possible. A lot of the families want to take Tony Blair to court.” | Relatives of the British soldiers who died in Iraq have led the chorus of pleas for the former prime minister to face justice in a courtroom. Melinda Ingram, whose RAF reservist son Chris Dunsmore died in 2007 just days before his 30th birthday, said: “If we go forward to a court case it would be interesting to see what the outcome is, and I think it should be tested in the court, but I don’t know if that’s possible. A lot of the families want to take Tony Blair to court.” |
| Rose Gentle, whose 19-year-old son Gordon died in 2004 while serving in Iraq with the Royal Highland Fusiliers, said Blair would be remembered “not as a prime minister but as a person who sent them on an illegal war,” adding: “I would love to see him in court.” Ronnie Barker, whose son Private Lee Ellis was killed by a roadside bomb in 2006, said she agreed that she “would like to see Tony Blair sent to court”. | |
| Matthew Jury, a solicitor for the family of Major Matthew Bacon, who died in an Iraqi roadside bombing, said: “If state officials are determined to have acted unlawfully or in excess of their powers then the families will then decide on whether to take any necessary and appropriate action at the proper time. All options will be considered. | Matthew Jury, a solicitor for the family of Major Matthew Bacon, who died in an Iraqi roadside bombing, said: “If state officials are determined to have acted unlawfully or in excess of their powers then the families will then decide on whether to take any necessary and appropriate action at the proper time. All options will be considered. |
| “Just as importantly, as well as examining the culpability of individual state officials, we must also look at the process that led to the war, so that we never make such grave mistakes with such tragic long-term and far-reaching consequences again.” | “Just as importantly, as well as examining the culpability of individual state officials, we must also look at the process that led to the war, so that we never make such grave mistakes with such tragic long-term and far-reaching consequences again.” |
| As well as criminal prosecutions, more civil claims for compensation are likely to emerge based on the detailed evidence of military equipment shortcomings exposed by the Chilcot report. | As well as criminal prosecutions, more civil claims for compensation are likely to emerge based on the detailed evidence of military equipment shortcomings exposed by the Chilcot report. |
| The shadow leader of the Commons, the Labour MP Paul Flynn, said there should be “serious consideration to [Blair] being prosecuted”. He added: “I think that the important issue here is that it is not just one individual: parliament is on trial. It wasn’t just Tony Blair, it was most of the Labour backbenchers; it was all of the Tory backbenchers, except half a dozen. “ | |
| There were no lawyers on the Chilcot inquiry and it did not formally express a view on whether the military action was legal, but experts cautioned about the barriers to bringing a prosecution. Dr Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association (IBA), said that international law had “not progressed to a stage” where anyone who breached the United Nations charter’s prohibition on the use of force could be brought to justice. | There were no lawyers on the Chilcot inquiry and it did not formally express a view on whether the military action was legal, but experts cautioned about the barriers to bringing a prosecution. Dr Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association (IBA), said that international law had “not progressed to a stage” where anyone who breached the United Nations charter’s prohibition on the use of force could be brought to justice. |
| “To date,” Ellis said, “the international criminal court does not have jurisdiction over ‘acts of aggression’. The only body able to initiate sanctions against states that trigger these acts is the UN security council. However, both the United States and Great Britain, as permanent members of the council, would never consent to such sanctions.” | “To date,” Ellis said, “the international criminal court does not have jurisdiction over ‘acts of aggression’. The only body able to initiate sanctions against states that trigger these acts is the UN security council. However, both the United States and Great Britain, as permanent members of the council, would never consent to such sanctions.” |
| The human rights lawyer Adam Wagner said: “Realistically, a criminal or civil claim against Blair himself would be unlikely, but civil claims against the Ministry of Defence – both by soldiers and Iraqi civilians/combatants – may well result. There have been many such claims prior to Chilcot.” | |
| Daniel Machover, an expert in war crimes prosecutions at the law firm Hickman & Rose, said: “If there is evidence of breaches of the laws of war in the conduct of military operations in Iraq, the Rome statute [which set up the international criminal court] allows prosecution of those responsible at the highest levels, both politicians and military leaders. | Daniel Machover, an expert in war crimes prosecutions at the law firm Hickman & Rose, said: “If there is evidence of breaches of the laws of war in the conduct of military operations in Iraq, the Rome statute [which set up the international criminal court] allows prosecution of those responsible at the highest levels, both politicians and military leaders. |
| “All that is needed is to show that they knew or should have known of the offences and they failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent them. Such a prosecution can be mounted either in our courts here or, if our legal system is unable or unwilling to bring them to justice, then at the ICC in The Hague.” | “All that is needed is to show that they knew or should have known of the offences and they failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent them. Such a prosecution can be mounted either in our courts here or, if our legal system is unable or unwilling to bring them to justice, then at the ICC in The Hague.” |
| Lewis Power QC, a member of the war crimes committee of the IBA, said: “The problem we face is that the international criminal court does not have the jurisdiction to address whether this was a pointless act of war. The only potential mechanism is to look at sanctions against states which triggered these acts, but the irony is that both the US and the GB are permanent members of the UN security council and the question begging is would they ever consent to such sanctions?” | Lewis Power QC, a member of the war crimes committee of the IBA, said: “The problem we face is that the international criminal court does not have the jurisdiction to address whether this was a pointless act of war. The only potential mechanism is to look at sanctions against states which triggered these acts, but the irony is that both the US and the GB are permanent members of the UN security council and the question begging is would they ever consent to such sanctions?” |
| Anticipating renewed pressure for legal action, the (ICC) in The Hague confirmed that it is still carrying out “a preliminary examination with respect to the situation in Iraq” – not a full investigation. | Anticipating renewed pressure for legal action, the (ICC) in The Hague confirmed that it is still carrying out “a preliminary examination with respect to the situation in Iraq” – not a full investigation. |
| It said the court’s prosecutor would “consider the Chilcot report as part of its due diligence of assessing all relevant material that could provide further context to the allegations of war crimes by British troops in Iraq”. | |
| It added: “The specific question of the legality of the decision to resort to the use of force in Iraq in 2003 – or elsewhere – does not fall within the legal mandate of the court, and hence, is not within the scope of its preliminary examination ... Suggesting, therefore, that the ICC has ruled out investigating the former British prime minister for war crimes but may prosecute soldiers is a misrepresentation of the facts, drawn from unfamiliarity with the court’s jurisdictional parameters.” | It added: “The specific question of the legality of the decision to resort to the use of force in Iraq in 2003 – or elsewhere – does not fall within the legal mandate of the court, and hence, is not within the scope of its preliminary examination ... Suggesting, therefore, that the ICC has ruled out investigating the former British prime minister for war crimes but may prosecute soldiers is a misrepresentation of the facts, drawn from unfamiliarity with the court’s jurisdictional parameters.” |
| The ICC would only bring a prosecution, the statement added, if “a state is unable or unwilling to genuinely investigate and prosecute [any] perpetrators”. | |
| In a related legal development, John Cooper QC, who represented the family of Dr David Kelly – the government scientist who died after he was exposed as the source of a BBC story about the Iraq intelligence – said he would be considering whether the inquest into his death should be reopened in the light of the Chilcot report. |