U.K.'s Top Lawyer Accused of Telling Brit Commanders Not to Protect Iraqis' Human Rights

Editor's note: This story is shaping up to be a significant scandal in the United Kingdom. It should be noted that Lord Goldsmith has vigorously denied the charges contained in this article.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, is facing accusations that he told the Army its soldiers were not bound by the Human Rights Act when arresting, detaining and interrogating Iraqi prisoners.

Previously confidential emails, seen by the Independent, between London and British military headquarters in Iraq soon after the start of the war, suggest Lord Goldsmith's advice was to adopt a "pragmatic" approach when handling prisoners, saying it was not necessary to follow the "higher standards" of the protection of the Human Rights Act.

That, according to human rights lawyers, was tantamount to the attorney general advising the military to ignore the Human Rights Act and to simply observe the Geneva Conventions. It was also contrary to advice given by the Army's senior lawyer in Iraq, who urged the adoption of higher standards.

Today, rights groups and experts in international law will call on the government to disclose Lord Goldsmith's legal opinion, which they say could have helped create a culture of abuse of Iraqis by British soldiers.

Last month, the first British soldier convicted of a war crime was jailed for a year and dismissed from the Army after being convicted of mistreating Iraqi civilians, including the hotel worker Baha Mousa, who died of injuries at the hands of British soldiers. In 2005, three British soldiers were jailed by a court martial in Germany after "trophy" photographs emerged, showing Iraqi detainees being abused at an aid center called Camp Bread Basket. There are about 60 more allegations of abuse being prepared for legal claims by rights groups.

Last week, Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the government to ask for an "explanation" about the evidence of torture in the Baha Mousa court martial.

Andrew Dismore MP, chair of the committee, said: "We have asked the Ministry of Defense to explain what appear to be stark inconsistencies in the evidence presented to our committee about the use of inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques prohibited as long ago as 1972."

But emails sent just after the invasion indicate Lord Goldsmith's belief that British soldiers in Iraq were not bound by the Human Rights Act. The documents also show a wide differing of opinion between him and Lt. Col. Nicholas Mercer, the Army's most senior legal adviser on the ground, who wrote to say he felt "the ECHR would apply" to troops in Iraq.

On one occasion, Rachel Quick, the legal adviser to Permanent Joint Headquarters who had regularly sought and been given guidance from Lord Goldsmith on the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, wrote to Col. Mercer giving her interpretation of the attorney general's advice. His view, she said, "was that the HRA was only intended to protect rights conferred by the convention and must look to international law to determine the scope of those rights."

Quick went on say that the advice of the attorney general, supported by professor Christopher Greenwood (the barrister who advised Lord Goldsmith on the legality of the war), was that, in the circumstances, the HRA did not apply. "For your purposes," she wrote, "I would suggest this means no requirement for you to provide guidance on the application of the HRA. I hope this is clear."

Quick, who in November 2003, was appointed OBE, added: "With regard to the detention of civilians, I will look at your documents in more detail and discuss with FCO, MoD legal advisers. Although my initial thoughts are you are trying to introduce U.K. procedures to a Geneva Convention IV context. Whilst this may be the perfect solution it may not be the pragmatic solution. Again we raised this issue with the AG and got a helpful steer on the procedures. I'll aim to try to produce guidance, taking into account their advice on the detention of civilians."