Keir Starmer, now the Prime Minister, was involved in a pivotal legal case that ultimately paved the way for hundreds of British soldiers to face investigations for alleged war crimes, it has emerged. The revelation came to light last night, shedding new light on Sir Keir's past work as a senior human rights barrister.
Prime Minister's Legal Submission with Lord Hermer
Sir Keir worked closely with his friend, Lord Hermer, who currently serves as the Attorney General, on a legal submission to judges hearing a significant human rights claim in 2007. This case fundamentally reshaped the legal framework governing soldiers operating in war zones. The submission was part of the landmark case known as Al-Skeini and others v Secretary of State for Defence, which was brought forward on behalf of the families of six Iraqis who alleged their relatives had been unlawfully killed by British forces.
Intervention on Behalf of Human Rights Groups
Sir Keir acted pro bono as an intervener in the case, representing human rights campaigners including Amnesty International and Liberty. It is important to note that interveners have an interest in the outcome of a legal claim but are not direct parties to it. Downing Street clarified last night that Sir Keir did not represent the Iraqi families in the case. A spokesman stated that his role was to 'assist the court on points of law, not to advocate for either side', and that he represented interveners such as the Law Society of England and Wales.
The legal submission made by Sir Keir and Lord Hermer urged the courts to order a fresh inquiry into a British soldier who had already been cleared twice of murder over the death of an Iraqi man in 2003. This soldier, Sergeant Richie Catterall, was pursued for thirteen years before a judge reportedly ruled that he had acted in self-defence. Sergeant Catterall expressed his dismay, telling the Daily Telegraph, 'I am gutted Keir Starmer helped bring this case against me. He is now the Prime Minister and he owes me an apology.'
Arguments Over European Human Rights Law
The intervention by the human rights groups, represented by Sir Keir and Lord Hermer, argued that the European Convention on Human Rights should be applied to British forces in Iraq. Their submission contended that a relationship of power, control, and protection existed between the UK and the inhabitants of that area of Iraq, which was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the ECHR. They maintained that British troops were exercising effective control in parts of Iraq, thereby obliging the UK to conduct fresh investigations under European human rights law.
Initially, this argument was rejected by the British courts in 2007. However, the European Court of Human Rights overturned the British ruling in 2011, compelling the UK to reopen investigations into the deaths. This decision triggered a cascade of criminal inquiries into British soldiers, many of whom had already been cleared of any wrongdoing. Consequently, hundreds of soldiers were subjected to years of prolonged investigation.
Political and Legal Repercussions
Johnny Mercer, the former veterans minister, last night accused Sir Keir of 'unleashing the witch-hunt against British troops'. The case ultimately led the Ministry of Defence to order fresh inquiries into deaths in Iraq, marking a significant shift in how military operations are legally scrutinised.
It is noteworthy that the case on behalf of the Iraqi families was brought by Phil Shiner, who in 2024 was convicted of fraud for dishonestly making legal aid claims and for paying intermediaries in Iraq to procure clients and evidence. Sir Keir and Lord Hermer did not represent Shiner or the families in the case, emphasising their role as independent legal interveners focused on broader principles of law.
This development highlights the complex intersection of human rights law, military accountability, and political leadership, raising important questions about the legacy of legal decisions and their impact on service personnel.
