Attorney General

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya): At the end of her judgement in the BAE case one of the law lords, Lady  Hale, said “- - I would wish that the world was a better place where honest and conscientious public servants were not put in impossible situations such as this - - -“. I would wish that too. I would also wish that people and nations did not seek to advance their interests by violence or the threat of violence. If that were so there would be no need of armaments industries and questions of national security could be dealt with in a more open and satisfactory way.

The impossible situation to which Lady Hale referred was the dilemma confronting the Director of the SFO in deciding, with incomplete information, whether, to quote Lord Bingham, “the public interest in pursuing an important investigation into alleged bribery was outweighed by the public interest in protecting the lives of British citizens”. The incompleteness of information available to the Director is the link to my second wish and my remark about how questions of national security are dealt with.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): The parliamentary joint committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (CRB) will soon begin taking evidence. I will be posting regularly about some of the debates and issues it should be taking into account, starting with the role of the Attorney General. Unfortunately the proposed legislation does not fully address and in some senses would worsen the very issues that brought reform of this office onto the agenda in the first place. Controversy has arisen in recent years over the role of the Attorney General that combines significant legal duties with government and party roles. In two major cases, there has been justifiable suspicion over Lord Goldsmith's revision of his advice on the legality of the Iraq War and government resistance to publishing that advice; and his part in putting pressure on the Serious Fraud Office to get it to drop the Al-Yamamah arms deal investigation. In both cases, it seems that he might have been leant on. Finally, there was considerable doubt about his potential role in deciding whether to prosecute over the 'cash for honours' investigation.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): Early last November I posted a piece on OurKingdom suggesting that consultation by government is, on occasion, used to stifle the raising of unwelcome questions. I am prompted by yesterday's Times - "Law minister is forced to give up power over political cases"- to return to the theme.

Andrew Blick (London, Houses of Parliament): Some interesting consultation papers are emerging from the government's constitutional reform programme: but they are not yet receiving the attention and scrutiny they merit. One of them is 'A Consultation on the Role of the Attorney General'. The post of Attorney General is constitutionally anomalous: its holder is appointed by the Prime Minister, yet required to act as 'guardian of the public interest' with regard to important decisions such as bringing (or not bringing) criminal prosecutions. The latter role surely requires execution by someone who is - and is seen to be - independent of the executive. Already the government has proposed that the A-G will no longer be able to direct prosecutors in individual criminal cases - a step forward, though there will be exceptions for 'national security', a category often abused to avoid political embarrassment. We now need to address broader issues - for instance, if Parliament is to be asked to endorse military actions - as is intended - should it not be should be entitled to view in full the advice provided by the A-G on their legality? If Parliament was not in recess, perhaps it could be discussing these issues.