Unlawful UK air strikes in Iraq - Letter of 25th September 2014 to UK Attorney General and Solicitor General

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:

25^th 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.