Yesterday, disgraced former human rights lawyer Phil Shiner received a two-year suspended prison sentence after pleading guilty to three counts of fraud connected to his notorious cases against British soldiers in Iraq. Hacks have noted that Starmer, the self-proclaimed champion of justice, has quite the history with Shiner…
Back in 2005, Starmer advised Shiner on a legal challenge aiming to stop peace activists’ taxes from funding military action. By 2006, he was representing a suspected terrorist in Iraq suing the UK government for unlawful detention—another case brought to him by Shiner. The collaboration didn’t end there…
Guido’s spotted that in 2008, Starmer contributed an entire chapter to Shiner’s book The Iraq War and International Law. Shiner’s glowing foreword heaps praise on Starmer’s work:
“The fact that the court may be required to consider political negotiations and discussions does not imply that the issue is non-justiciable. One need look no further than Keir Starmer’s chapter in this volume on the case of Al-Jedda for that proposition to be made good.”
Starmer’s chapter titled “Responsibility for Troops Abroad: UN-Mandated Forces and Issues of Human Rights Accountability”, runs for 20 pages and delves into the “UN Security Council as a legislative body” and the “role of international law” . One human rights case Starmer discusses is that of Ruzhdi Saramati, who was detained for 6 months without trial by Kosovo Forces troops in 2001 on suspicion of attempted murder and illegal possession of a weapon (he was later convicted of attempted murder in 2002). Saramati alleged a breach of Article 5 of the ECHR for the detainment. The ECHR ruled that actions taken by Kosovo Forces were attributable to the UN, not individual states and as the ECHR lacked jurisdiction over the UN, the case was deemed inadmissible. The ruling prompted Starmer to conclude:
“The obvious concern about the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Behrami/Saramati is that it might undermine the accountability of troops operating abroad that can be established through international human rights law. Such political accountability as there may be for the UN through the Security Council is no substitute for legal accountability under international human rights law. Either the approach taken in Behrami/Saramati, and perhaps the whole delegation thesis, has to be re-examined, or the accountability mechanisms of the UN have to be radically, and speedily, overhauled.”
As Sir Keir boasted at PMQs, he spent five years as a human rights lawyer. Clearly, Shiner thought highly of his former colleague’s legal reflections. Looks like Haigh isn’t the only fraudster Starmer’s been cosy with…
Statement by Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Limited, following Harry’s loss in court today:
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante. The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession. Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper. Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”