Previous page | Contents | Next page
5  |  Advice on the legal basis for military action, November 2002 to March 2003
“Both of them in a sense were saying the same thing. They were saying, ‘We are
potentially at risk personally if we participate’, or, in the case of the Civil Service,
‘assist in war, if it turns out to be unlawful, and therefore, we want to know whether
the Attorney’s view is yes or no, lawful’.
“That seemed to me to be actually a very reasonable approach for them to take …”283
705.  Lord Goldsmith told the Inquiry that he:
“… very quickly saw that actually this wasn’t satisfactory from their point of view.
They deserved more … than my saying there was a reasonable case.
“So, therefore it was important for me to come down clearly on one side of the
argument or the other, which is what I proceeded to do.”284
706.  Lord Goldsmith added:
“… until the Civil Service and the … Services said they wanted this clear view, I
was working … I take full responsibility for this, but it was with the approval of my
office on the basis that saying there was a reasonable case was a green light. It was
sufficient for the Government, and if the Cabinet and, as it turns out, the House of
Commons, took the view that it was the right thing to do, then we had done enough
to explain what the legal basis was and to justify it.
“But when they came with their request, I then saw that actually that wasn’t fair
on them.”
707.  Asked how the case had suddenly become stronger, Lord Goldsmith replied:
“It is the decision you make about it. You make a judgment. You say ‘I’m asked to
advise whether there is a reasonable case’, and you examine all the evidence and
you say, ‘Yes there is a reasonable case’. You don’t need to go any further, and in
that respect, I can see with hindsight, that I was being overly cautious.
“Then somebody says to you, ‘Actually, I don’t want to know whether you say there
is a reasonable case, I want to know whether or not you consider that it will be
lawful.’
“Well, I regard that as a different question and you then have to answer it.”285
708.  Asked why he was able to give the Armed Forces a more certain answer without
providing more legal arguments, Lord Goldsmith replied:
“Well, not on the basis of more legal argument, but on the basis of asking a different
question. This is, in a sense, why I’m saying ‘with hindsight’. I would have liked to
283 Public hearing, 27 January 2010, pages 183-184.
284 Public hearing, 27 January 2010, page 171.
285 Public hearing, 27 January 2010, page 172.
127
Previous page | Contents | Next page