Austen Morgan: Phil Shiner knew Starmer, and Starmer knew him – but wants you to forget that
Are they actually going to vote on something real?
Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers. He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.
When, at last Wednesday’s PMQs, Kemi Badenoch was wasting Sir Keir Starmer over ‘Mandelson’ (as he is now known), there was also revealed something of the Prime Minister’s attitude towards UK troops on operations overseas.
Charlie Dewhirst, a new conservative MP, asked a question, after Badenoch’s allotted six:
“Was he [the prime minister] ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers [of Birmingham], to act in any legal case?”
The prime minister replied: “Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.”
That, as we lawyers say, is an implied admission of probable earlier involvement with Phil Shiner, if not with wrongdoing – not that the mainstream media had any bandwidth to deconstruct the answer and interrogate Number 10’s feeble attempts to portray the prime minister as the new best friend of military veterans.
The answer lies in our law reports, which are public documents, and in particular two important cases: Al-Skeini, in 2004-07, which went to the house of lords; and Al-Jedda, in 2005-07, which also went to our highest court. Both sets of claimants were represented by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers.
The Al-Skeini claimants were the Iraqi relatives of six men killed by UK soldiers. The legal issue became whether the Human Rights Act 1998 applied in another country, namely Iraq, in which case the relatives would be entitled to effective investigations in the UK. Five appellants failed, but the father of Baha Mousa succeeded because his son – a hotel receptionist in Basra – died in military detention.
Lord Bingham, the senior law lord, whom I have admired throughout my career, dissented, dealing with the complexities of international law (unlike the advocates before the court): the sovereignty and jurisdiction of two states; customary international law (including international humanitarian law); and a multilateral human rights agreement. The Bingham dissent, not the judgment, is the landmark.
Sir Keir Starmer QC appeared in the case, one of his juniors being a Richard Hermer from his chambers. He represented the so-called interveners, who were: the redress trust; the AIRE centre; Amnesty International; the association for the prevention of torture; the bar human rights committee, British Irish Rights Watch; Interights, Justice; the Kurdish human rights project; the law society of England and Wales; and Liberty.
Reading the House of Lords law report (68 pages), one notes: ‘the first five claimants (strongly supported by the interveners)’ (p 176); and …
Are they actually going to vote on something real?
Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers. He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.
When, at last Wednesday’s PMQs, Kemi Badenoch was wasting Sir Keir Starmer over ‘Mandelson’ (as he is now known), there was also revealed something of the Prime Minister’s attitude towards UK troops on operations overseas.
Charlie Dewhirst, a new conservative MP, asked a question, after Badenoch’s allotted six:
“Was he [the prime minister] ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers [of Birmingham], to act in any legal case?”
The prime minister replied: “Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.”
That, as we lawyers say, is an implied admission of probable earlier involvement with Phil Shiner, if not with wrongdoing – not that the mainstream media had any bandwidth to deconstruct the answer and interrogate Number 10’s feeble attempts to portray the prime minister as the new best friend of military veterans.
The answer lies in our law reports, which are public documents, and in particular two important cases: Al-Skeini, in 2004-07, which went to the house of lords; and Al-Jedda, in 2005-07, which also went to our highest court. Both sets of claimants were represented by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers.
The Al-Skeini claimants were the Iraqi relatives of six men killed by UK soldiers. The legal issue became whether the Human Rights Act 1998 applied in another country, namely Iraq, in which case the relatives would be entitled to effective investigations in the UK. Five appellants failed, but the father of Baha Mousa succeeded because his son – a hotel receptionist in Basra – died in military detention.
Lord Bingham, the senior law lord, whom I have admired throughout my career, dissented, dealing with the complexities of international law (unlike the advocates before the court): the sovereignty and jurisdiction of two states; customary international law (including international humanitarian law); and a multilateral human rights agreement. The Bingham dissent, not the judgment, is the landmark.
Sir Keir Starmer QC appeared in the case, one of his juniors being a Richard Hermer from his chambers. He represented the so-called interveners, who were: the redress trust; the AIRE centre; Amnesty International; the association for the prevention of torture; the bar human rights committee, British Irish Rights Watch; Interights, Justice; the Kurdish human rights project; the law society of England and Wales; and Liberty.
Reading the House of Lords law report (68 pages), one notes: ‘the first five claimants (strongly supported by the interveners)’ (p 176); and …
Austen Morgan: Phil Shiner knew Starmer, and Starmer knew him – but wants you to forget that
Are they actually going to vote on something real?
Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers. He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.
When, at last Wednesday’s PMQs, Kemi Badenoch was wasting Sir Keir Starmer over ‘Mandelson’ (as he is now known), there was also revealed something of the Prime Minister’s attitude towards UK troops on operations overseas.
Charlie Dewhirst, a new conservative MP, asked a question, after Badenoch’s allotted six:
“Was he [the prime minister] ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers [of Birmingham], to act in any legal case?”
The prime minister replied: “Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.”
That, as we lawyers say, is an implied admission of probable earlier involvement with Phil Shiner, if not with wrongdoing – not that the mainstream media had any bandwidth to deconstruct the answer and interrogate Number 10’s feeble attempts to portray the prime minister as the new best friend of military veterans.
The answer lies in our law reports, which are public documents, and in particular two important cases: Al-Skeini, in 2004-07, which went to the house of lords; and Al-Jedda, in 2005-07, which also went to our highest court. Both sets of claimants were represented by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers.
The Al-Skeini claimants were the Iraqi relatives of six men killed by UK soldiers. The legal issue became whether the Human Rights Act 1998 applied in another country, namely Iraq, in which case the relatives would be entitled to effective investigations in the UK. Five appellants failed, but the father of Baha Mousa succeeded because his son – a hotel receptionist in Basra – died in military detention.
Lord Bingham, the senior law lord, whom I have admired throughout my career, dissented, dealing with the complexities of international law (unlike the advocates before the court): the sovereignty and jurisdiction of two states; customary international law (including international humanitarian law); and a multilateral human rights agreement. The Bingham dissent, not the judgment, is the landmark.
Sir Keir Starmer QC appeared in the case, one of his juniors being a Richard Hermer from his chambers. He represented the so-called interveners, who were: the redress trust; the AIRE centre; Amnesty International; the association for the prevention of torture; the bar human rights committee, British Irish Rights Watch; Interights, Justice; the Kurdish human rights project; the law society of England and Wales; and Liberty.
Reading the House of Lords law report (68 pages), one notes: ‘the first five claimants (strongly supported by the interveners)’ (p 176); and …
0 Comments
0 Shares
36 Views
0 Reviews
