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

“This is someone whose decision is that this was lawful, and I can’t see how Cabinet

could look behind that and have the kind of discussion that you are suggesting.

This was not policy advice. This was not, ‘On the one hand … and on the other

hand, we might take this course of action’. What he was saying is that this was

lawful in his judgment, and I can’t see how we could have had a sensible discussion

going beyond that.”380

861. Mrs Beckett told the Inquiry:

“Peter Goldsmith came to Cabinet. He made it clear what was his view. It was open

to people to ask questions … I was never the slightest bit surprised to learn that in

earlier iterations he had drawn attention to, ‘On the one hand … on the other hand’

… that’s what lawyers do.”381

862. Mr Straw was asked whether it would have been better if Cabinet had had Lord

Goldsmith’s full opinion, whether he had persuaded Lord Goldsmith to present only the

(PQ) answer, whether it was incumbent on Cabinet to satisfy itself that it was be aware of

the arguments, and why Lord Goldsmith had reached his conclusion. He told the Inquiry:

“I did that, partly for the reasons I have explained … but also, because we were

concerned about leaks, and … what the military wanted to know wasn’t the process

by which a decision had been arrived at.”382

863. Asked whether he had been given the opportunity to look at the full legal opinion

of 7 March, Dr Reid told the Inquiry:

“I was given the opportunity, but I didn’t particularly want to look at some long

‘balancing’ legal opinion, I wanted to know ‘is what we are about to do lawful, or is it

illegal?’ … [A]s far as I was aware, the constitutional convention and legality in Great

Britain for the Cabinet is dependent on the judgment of the Attorney General.”383

864. In a statement he sent the Inquiry before his second hearing on 8 February 2010,

Mr Straw wrote that, in the absence of the ability to secure an authoritative determination

of the law from the courts, “a great weight of responsibility” rested on the shoulders of

the Attorney General, and that his role was to determine whether the UK Government

could consider the merits of taking military action.384

865. Mr Straw was asked whether Cabinet could meet its responsibilities to address

the key moral as well as political issues, as stated by Mr Straw in his ‘Supplementary

380 Public hearing, 19 January 2010, page 70.

381 Public hearing, 26 January 2010, pages 53-55.

382 Public hearing, 8 February 2010, pages 62-63.

383 Public hearing, 3 February 2010, page 76.

384 Statement, February 2010, ‘Supplementary Memorandum by the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP’, page 5.

155