5 | Advice on the legal basis for military action, November 2002 to March 2003

resolution 1441 is capable in any circumstances of being interpreted as authorising

the use of force without a further Security Council decision.”

120. Ms Adams added:

“… I think a serious issue for consideration is whether, if you were to reach the view

that resolution 1441 was under no circumstances capable of being interpreted as

authorising force without a further Council decision … this should be relayed to the

Foreign Office and No.10.”

121. Observing that “the Foreign Secretary (and other Ministers) have gone beyond

the neutral line suggested … stating that resolution 1441 does not ‘necessarily’

require a further Council decision”, Ms Adams suggested that if Lord Goldsmith

was “not minded” to give advice: “An alternative option … might be for me to reply

to Michael [Wood]’s letter confirming that you do not propose to advise at this stage, but

stressing the need for neutrality in HMG’s public line for so long as you have not advised

on the interpretation of the resolution.”

122. Lord Goldsmith told the Inquiry that the instructions set out both arguments

“without expressing a view between them, although I think I knew what view Sir Michael

took about it”.37

123. Mr Straw told the Inquiry that he had asked Mr Wood to ensure Lord Goldsmith

was given a balanced view.38

124. Mr Straw added that, if Sir Michael had thought there was only one view, that was

“what he would have written” to Lord Goldsmith. Mr Straw stated that he:

“… had no input, as far as I recall – and we have been through the records –

whatsoever in what he [Sir Michael] wrote to the Attorney General. Quite properly.

I don’t think I, so far as I recall, ever saw the letter until after it had been written, and

that’s entirely proper.

“If his view had been, ‘There is no doubt we require a second resolution’ … then

that’s what he should have written, but he didn’t.”39

125. In his statement for the Inquiry, Mr Pattison wrote:

“With hindsight, the letter … probably steered [Lord Goldsmith] in a particular

direction: although it set out competing interpretations of SCR 1441, it was loaded

in favour of one.”40

37 Public hearing, 27 January 2010, page 62.

38 Public hearing, 8 February 2010, page 13.

39 Public hearing, 8 February 2010, page 15.

40 Statement, January 2011, paragraph 35.

29