The families of British soldiers killed in Iraq have won a dramatic legal breakthrough in their attempt to force a full public inquiry into why Britain entered the conflict.
In what their lawyers described as "a stunning victory", the Court of Appeal has ruled they were entitled to apply for judicial review of the Government's refusal to hold an independent inquiry.
www.skynews.co.uk
no article is available yet
"In particular, the government must finally explain how the 13-page equivocal advice from the Attorney General of March 7 2003 was changed within 10 days to a one-page completely unequivocal advice that an invasion would be legal." The attorney general's office said: "At the full hearing, the government will continue to argue strongly that there is no legal merit in the applicants' case and that issues relating to the use of armed force are fundamentally matters for the elected government to decide, not for determination by the courts." BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said the decision was a "small victory" and it was unlikely that the hearing would result in the families being given the full public inquiry that they seek.
The attorney general's office said: "At the full hearing, the government will continue to argue strongly that there is no legal merit in the applicants' case and that issues relating to the use of armed force are fundamentally matters for the elected government to decide, not for determination by the courts."
BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said the decision was a "small victory" and it was unlikely that the hearing would result in the families being given the full public inquiry that they seek.
Pretty useless argument from the AG. Does that mean that the elected government can do anything it wants with the armed forces with no legal consistency or oversight?
I'd hope any lawyer should be able to point out that there may perhaps be one or two minor problems with that line of reasoning.
