Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
understand what their objectives are, to reach a way of achieving those which is
lawful …”48
138.  Asked about whether the legal issues were folded into the developing policy
questions, Lord Goldsmith replied:
“I think in the event that did happen. As you have heard, on two occasions I insisted
on offering a view, even though it wasn’t being asked for, to make sure the policy, as
it were, took account of that.”49
139.  Ms Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a Deputy FCO Legal Adviser, identified a particular risk
that arose from the lateness of the definitive advice:
“… on the process of obtaining the Law Officers’ advice, it was clearly far from
satisfactory, and it seemed to have been left right until the end, the request to him
for his formal opinion, as if it was simply an impediment that had to be got over
before the policy could be implemented, and perhaps a lesson to be learned is that,
if the Law Officers’ advice needs to be obtained, as it always does for the use of
force issues, then it should be obtained before the deployment of substantial forces.
For the Attorney to have advised that the conflict would have been unlawful without
a second resolution would have been very difficult at that stage without handing
Saddam Hussein a massive public relations advantage. It was extraordinary, frankly,
to leave the request to him so late in the day.”50
140.  Asked if it would have been useful to have had the formal advice of the Attorney
General during the period after resolution 1441 when the Armed Forces were preparing
for military action, Mr Blair replied:
“No. I think what was important for him to do was to explain to us what his concerns
were … Peter was quite rightly saying to us, ‘These are my concerns. This is why
I don’t think 1441 in itself is enough’.
“… [W]e had begun military preparations even before we got the … 1441 resolution.
We had to do that otherwise we would never have been in a position to take military
action. But let me make it absolutely clear, if Peter in the end had said, ‘This cannot
be justified lawfully’, we would have been unable to take action.”51
141.  Asked if he had any observations on the process by which Lord Goldsmith’s advice
had been obtained, Lord Turnbull, Cabinet Secretary between September 2002 and
September 2005, said: “I can see that it would have been better if this had been done
earlier, but the list of things for which that is true runs to many pages.”52
48 Public hearing, 27 January 2010, page 102.
49 Public hearing, 27 January 2010, page 232.
50 Public hearing, 26 January 2010, pages 24-25.
51 Public hearing, 29 January 2010, page 150.
52 Public hearing, 25 January 2011, page 25.
32
Previous page | Contents | Next page