Foreign Office asks judges not to rule on Iraq war legality
Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
Thursday July 1, 2004
The Guardian
The Foreign Office has asked appeal court judges to refrain from ruling
on
the legality of the war in Iraq for fear of giving comfort to
terrorists,
endangering the lives of Britons in Iraq, and harming foreign
relations.
It would be prejudicial to the national interest if the courts
expressed a
view which differed from the government's on the legal justification
for the
war, the permanent under secretary of state, Sir Michael Jay, said in a
witness statement handed in 10 minutes before the hearing began on
Tuesday.
The hearing ended yesterday with judgment reserved.
Five peace activists charged with trying to delay US bombers taking off
from
RAF Fairford in the week before the war sought a ruling that they were
entitled to plead in their defence that they acted to postpone the
start of
a war they believed to be illegal.
A high court judge, Mr Justice Grigson, ruled in May that foreign
policy,
including the waging of war, was an exercise of crown prerogative which
could not be examined in the courts. But although the defendants could
not
raise the legality of the war itself, they could mount defences of
"necessity", prevention of crime, and "lawful excuse", based on the
"secondary effects" of the war.
Sir Michael said he was authorised to make his statement by the foreign
secretary, Jack Straw.
In his and Mr Straw's judgment "it would be prejudicial to the national
interest and the conduct of the government's foreign policy if the
English
courts were to express opinions on questions of international law
concerning
the use of force by the United Kingdom and other states which might
differ
from those expressed by the government and advanced by it in the
conduct of
international relations".
The appellants are Philip Pritchard and Toby Olditch, both of Oxford,
Margaret Jones, of Bristol, Paul Milling, who lives in the Lake
District,
and Josh Richards, of Bristol.