Public Interest Lawyers is an extraordinary firm of solicitors, who must be – certainly should be – the pride of the legal profession. Through their tenacity, quality and sheer hard work – often from unpromising beginnings and in dark times for public funding – they have single-handedly been responsible for shining the torchlight of legal accountability in a range of new areas. The work continues unabated. No barrister or judge, here or in Strasbourg, could have come to deal with the sorts of human rights issues which PIL continues to raise, but for their principled and brave pursuit of justice.

 

PIL demonstrates three further important things. First, how positive and constructive can be the use of public funding in public law cases, in the public interest. It has been hard. But PIL and the LSC have forged a partnership which is second to none, as to the importance of the cases that are brought, their success and their wider impact. Secondly, PIL demonstrates that London does not always lead, and a London-centric focus is neither helpful nor fair. This firm, from what are still sometimes thought of as “the provinces”, is the nation’s leader for human rights application in challenging cases. That PIL is looking, as a Birmingham-based firm. How refreshing for it to be that way.Thirdly, let it not be forgotten that PIL was set up as a new firm of solicitors. This is not the further and continued work of an established firm, set up long ago when times were different. This was an innovation; a leap of faith in the rule of law. It was a boat launched in a sea of uncertainty, which has turned out to be the flagship for public law accountability under the rule of law.

 

Michael Fordham QC
Michael Fordham QC
 
 

PIL: In anticpation of the P5+1 Baghdad talks, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament seek assurance from David Cameron that the UK will not engage in illegal military action in Iran

On Friday 18 May 2012, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) sent a letter to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, setting out their concerns at recent rhetoric emanating from Israel and the USA about the possibility of pre-emptive military action being taken against Iran. In anticipation of talks with Iranian officials due to take place in Baghdad from 23 May, the letter warns the UK against engaging in, or supporting, illegal military action.

 

CND, who seek to bring an end to nuclear proliferation and encourage peaceful resolution of international conflict, are concerned by the parallels between the build-up to the Iraq war and the aggressive posturing against Iran now being adopted by many Western powers. CND campaigned tirelessly against the war in Iraq and challenged the legality of the UK’s use of force in reliance on UN Security Council Resolution 1441.[1]

 

CND have noted with alarm the insistence by many political and legal commentators that pre-emptive military action may be necessary to deal with the alleged threat posed by Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. CND seek to remind the Prime Minister that no concrete evidence has been provided to substantiate Western concerns and that military intervention on the basis of such an ill-defined threat would be illegal. The letter draws a comparison with the UK and USA’s pursuit of the illegal war in Iraq based upon the, ultimately illusory, threat allegedly posed by Saddam Hussein’s stockpiling of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

The letter, drafted by Public Interest Lawyers on CND’s instruction, sets out the very limited circumstances prescribed by international law where pre-emptive military action can ever be justified. In short, such military action must always be used as a last resort; must be sanctioned by the UN Security Council; must be multilateral in nature and must be in response to a clearly defined, instant and overwhelming threat. CND suggest that none of these criteria can be said to exist in the current Iranian context.

 

It is hoped the letter will be a timely reminder to the UK of international legal obligations that should be plain and obvious to the Government in any case. With the P5+1 group of countries due to meet with Iranian officials in Baghdad from 23 May 2012 to discuss the conflict, CND urge peaceful resolution of the current dispute.

 

Kate Hudson, Chair of The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, stated:

 

The consequences of a military attack on Iran would be disastrous not only for that country but for the region as a whole. The lessons of both Iraq and Afghanistan show that there cannot be a military solution to complex regional problems – death and destruction is not the answer. Genuine dialogue and diplomacy on the basis of equality and respect is the only way forward.

 

Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers stated:

 

The international community requires the peaceful resolution of conflicts by all states at all times. It is accepted by all relevant legal commentators that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful. For the same reasons, the use of force against Iran would be unlawful in present circumstances. The UK must have nothing to do with such illegal aggressive posturing.

 
THE OPINION OF RABINDER SINGH QC AND PROFESSOR VAUGHAN LOWE OF 8 MAY 2008 IN THE MATTER OF THE POSSIBLE USE OF FORCE AGAINT IRAN
http://publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/go_files/files/PQ8RD5RQFV4K.pdf


[1] R (CND) v The Prime Minister and Others [2002] EWCH 2777


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  HIGH COURT RULES IN HUNDREDS OF IRAQI UNLAWFUL KILLINGS AND TORTURE CASES...
  BBC: Baha Mousa book and Marie Colvin honoured by Orwell Prize ...
  HIGH COURT GRANTS PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW IN AFGHAN KILLINGS CASE...
  Guardian: British soldier under investigation for murder over shooting of young Afghans...
  Guardian: Labour abstention on workfare bill prompts party infighting...
  The Independent: First Al-Sweady witnesses to appear...
  DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling...
  Judicial Review launched against Birmingham City Council over cuts to "Shelforce" - a supported disa...
  The Times: Lawyer of the week – Tessa Gregory...
  BBC: Al-Sweady inquiry opens in UK into deaths of Iraqis...
  Birmingham City Council threatened with Judicial Review proceedings over cuts to 'Shelforce' - a sup...
  Open Democracy: Home Secretary, please call off the attack on kidney patient Roseline Akhalu ...
  Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quas...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down tomorrow, Tuesday 12 February 201...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down on Tuesday 12 February 2013 at 10...
  BBC: New Iraq abuse cases by British forces go to High Court...
  Public Interest Lawyers respond to false reports in the Sun Newspaper regarding cases relating to Af...
  Legal Challenge to Doncaster Mayor's Decision to Reduce Library Funding wins Permission to Appeal...
  Observer: Is Britain guilty of systemic torture in Iraq?...
  Ali Zaki Mousa (no.2) and Others v Secretary of State for Defence...
  Legal Challenge to Cuts to North Somerset Youth Services Wins Permission to Appeal...
  New Statesman: The trials of Roseline Akhalu...