On 25th September 2014 I wrote to the UK Attorney General, Jeremy Wright MP, and Solicitor General, Robert Buckland MP to ask them, as a matter of urgency, to examine whether the proposed UK air strikes in Iraq were or were not terrorism in UK Law.
The letter was sent by email to email addresses which I had good cause to expect to be operative.
The covering email indicated that the matter was for the immediate attention of the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
On 26th September 2014 no mention was made in the House of Commons of the issue of UK air strikes being terrorism in UK Law. At least I have found no mention of the issue in reports of the debate.
Were the Attorney General and Solicitor General party to a deliberate deception of the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, David Cameron?
Was the vote authorising air strikes conducted on a false premise?
I believe there is a potential case that the UK Attorney General and UK Solicitor General may have wilfully caused the UK House of Commons to be misled.
Here is the text of my letter of 25th September 2014:
25th September 2014
To:
Jeremy Wright, Attorney General
Robert Buckland, Solicitor General
Gentlemen,
Proposed air
strikes in Iraq are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism
Act 2000
You will each be aware that the House of Commons is scheduled
tomorrow to consider a proposal from the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom
conduct air strikes in Iraq.
I write to draw to your attention the likelihood that the
proposed air strikes are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism
Act 2000.
Consequently, I believe that the proposed air strikes are
unlawfu
Section 1 of the
Terrorism Act 2000
This section of the Terrorism Act 2000 is the primary
definition of terrorism in UK Law.
For convenience I quote the full text of Section 1 here:
1 Terrorism:
interpretation.(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action
where—
(a)the action falls
within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat
is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental
organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat
is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or
ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within
this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious
violence against a person,
(b)involves serious
damage to property,
(c)endangers a
person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious
risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed
seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat
of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or
explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes
action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any
person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever
situated,
(c)a reference to the
public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United
Kingdom, and
(d)“the government”
means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or
of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a
reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to
action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
To constitute “terrorism” when explosives are used (as they
must be in air strikes) only two further criteria have to be satisfied.
First it must satisfy one or more of the criteria specified
in Subsection 1(2). Given the nature of air strikes it must be the case that
one or more of those criteria are satisfied.
The second test is that it must inter alia be in pursuance of a political cause. Mr. Cameron has
recently made public statements which describe some aspects of the political
cause in pursuance of which air strikes are proposed.
Against that (much simplified) background I conclude that
the proposed air strikes are terrorism in UK Law.
I see no rational basis on which it can be denied that the
proposed air strikes are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1.
Misleading the
House of Commons
In recent public statements the Prime Minister has claimed
that the proposed air strikes are lawful.
Given that the air strikes are “terrorism” in the meaning of
Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 this, so it seems to me, cannot be true.
I am concerned therefore that the Prime Minister intends to
mislead the House of Commons tomorrow prior to the vote on the proposed air
strikes.
Your perceived
duty
It is, in my perception, your duty to draw to the Prime
Minister’s attention that the proposed air srikes meet the criteria specified
in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and that, consequently, he is proposing
to have RAF pilots undertake acts of terrorism.
Actions requested
of you
I ask that you each carefully consider the matter of whether
the proposed air strikes are “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the
Terrorism Act 2000 and that you fully inform Members of Parliament of all
relevant aspects of this matter before the House of Commons debate tomorrow.
Secondly, I ask that you carefully consider whether
politicians and military personnel playing any part in the preparation for and
execution of such acts of “terrorism” are individually and jointly open to
prosecution for offences contrary to the various provisions of the Terrorism
Act 2000 and related legislation.
For example, it seems to me that the Prime Minister may
himself be liable for prosecution with respect to Section 56 of the Act for
which the penalty on conviction is life imprisonment should he succeed in inflicting
the unlawful air strikes on Iraq.
Misconduct in
public office
As stated above I believe you each have a duty to inform MPs
fully on this important question.
Should you choose to conceal this important question from
Members of Parliament (and the public) such premeditated deception seems to me to, at
least arguably, constitute the offence of misconduct in public office.
In the absence of your failing to inform MPs of this
important question prior to the debate I anticipate that I will make a report
to the Police of what I would perceive as criminal misconduct on your part.
Distribution of
this letter
This letter is a public document.
I am copying it visibly to Paul Flynn MP (Labour), Andrew
Mitchell MP (Conservative) and Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat).
I would be grateful if you would ensure that each receives a
copy of your reply to this letter. In the unlikely event that you dispute that
the proposed air strikes are “terrorism” I look forward to reading your
approach to the question.
Given that Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband seem to be under the
misapprehension that the proposed air strikes are lawful I ask that you
similarly copy them in to your reply.
Further, I ask that you copy your reply to the Chief Whip of
each party represented in the House of Commons.
Yours sincerely
(Dr) Andrew Watt
For the record, of the copy recipients Mr. Flynn voted against air strikes. Mr.Mitchell voted for the air strikes.
Sir Robert Smith voted for the air strikes but has written to the Attorney General and Solicitor General asking "that they address the points you have raised".
At the time of writing this blog post I am not aware that either the Attorney General or Solicitor General have replied either to myself or to Sir Robert Smith MP.
