Attorney General told to reveal Iraq advice information
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Attorney General's office was ordered today to disclose information leading to his advice on the legality of invading Iraq in 2003.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas upheld requests for an explanation of Lord Goldsmith's statement to Parliament on 17 March in that year.
In a letter to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, Mr Thomas said the Attorney General's confidential advice to the Government, on 7 March, had been "significantly more equivocal in nature".
He added: "There is a public interest in establishing the extent to which published statements are consistent with fuller advice that had been given."
The Attorney's General's office was served with an enforcement notice upholding
complaints under the Freedom of Information Act.
The notice required publication of a disclosure statement containing "the substance of information" which led to Lord Goldsmith's written answer to the House of Lords on 17 March.
Mr Thomas said today that it was an "exceptional, complex and sensitive case" which had raised many issues.
He went on: "My conclusion is that the balance of the competing public interest tests calls for disclosure of the recorded information which led to, or supported, the concluded views which were made public by the Attorney General in his 17 March statement.
"As the Government chose to outline an unequivocal legal position, on such a critical issue at such a critical time, the balance of the public interest calls for disclosure of the recorded information which lay behind those views.
"By this means the public can better understand the background and rationale behind that published statement and the extent to which reliance upon those final conclusions was in fact justified.
"But I have also concluded that the arguments for maintaining the exemptions are sufficiently powerful that the balance of the competing public interests does not require the disclosure of those parts of the requested information which were of a preliminary, provisional or tentative nature or which may reveal legal risks, reservations or possible counter-argument.
"Nor is disclosure needed where it would prejudice the UK's relations with other countries."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments