The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
701.
Lord Goldsmith
told the Inquiry that he had reached his “better view” after he
had
received a
letter from the Ministry of Defence stating that Adm Boyce needed
“a yes or
no answer”
on whether military action would be lawful and, as requested by Sir
Andrew
Turnbull, a
visit from Ms Wheldon asking the same question on behalf of the
Civil
702.
Lord Boyce
told the Inquiry:
“… the
propriety and/or the legality of what we were about to do was
obviously a
concern of
mine, not least of it, since, somewhat against my better instincts,
we had
signed up
to the ICC [International Criminal Court]. I always made it
perfectly clear to
the Prime
Minister face-to-face, and, indeed, to the Cabinet, that if we were
invited
to go into
Iraq, we had to have a good legal basis for doing so, which
obviously
a second
resolution would have completely nailed.”281
“… that
wasn’t new, it was something which I had told the Prime Minister
that I would
need at the
end of the day, long before March. This is back in January when
we
started to
commit our forces out there, and, as you say, I received that
assurance.
This was an
important issue, particularly because of the speculation in the
press
about the
legality or otherwise and, as far as I was concerned particularly
for my
constituency,
in other words, soldiers, sailors and airmen and their families had
to be
told that
what they were doing was legal. So it formed the first line of my
Operational
Directive
which I signed on 20 March, and it was important for me just to
have a
one-liner,
because that was what was required, as far as I was concerned,
from
the Government
Law Officer, which, as you say, I received.”282
704.
Lord Goldsmith
told the Inquiry:
“… there
were a number of things which happened after 7 March. It was
becoming
clear,
though it hadn’t yet become definitive, that the second resolution
was going
to be
very difficult to obtain.
“… But most
importantly … I had been presented with a letter which had come
from
the
Ministry of Defence, which reflected the view of CDS, and which was
… calling
for this
clear view, a yes or no answer, as I think he has put
it.
“At about
the same time, I also received a visit from Juliet Wheldon … the
Treasury
Solicitor.
I understood her to be speaking on behalf of the Civil Service,
and, indeed,
from what I
now know, I suspect, believe, she would at least have been
encouraged
to do that
by the Cabinet Secretary on behalf of the Civil
Service.
280
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, pages 184-5.
281
Public
hearing, 3 December 2009, page 82.
282
Public
hearing, 3 December 2009, pages 88-89.
126