Whitehall launches hunt for mole who leaked Hermer's Iran advice

The Government has launched an official hunt for the Whitehall mole who leaked Lord Hermer's legal advice on Iran.
The Cabinet Office's Propriety and Ethics Team (PET) has been instructed to carry out an official leak inquiry after it was reported that the Attorney General did not believe the UK should join Israeli strikes on Iran.
On Wednesday The Spectator said Lord Hermer had told Downing Street that he had ' concerns about the UK playing any role in this except for defending our allies'.
The Telegraph understands the advice was given after Israel's first attack on Iranian nuclear facilities last Thursday, although it was not reported for another six days.
Lord Hermer was concerned that the UK might breach international law if it joined Israel in striking Iran directly. The United Nations Charter says that countries can only launch an attack in self-defence, to defend an ally, or if the UN Security Council passes a resolution authorising military action.
The leak has placed Lord Hermer in a difficult position because he is not allowed to discuss the content of his advice and Downing Street is keen to avoid any public discussion of its plans in the Middle East.
The disclosure came as Donald Trump was considering sending an American 'bunker buster' bomb into Iran to destroy a nuclear fuel enrichment facility in northwestern Iran.
In response, No 10 urged world leaders to keep 'cool heads' and said that it maintained a policy of 'de-escalation'.
The UK has not participated in any offensive action against Iran, nor defended Israel, since the latest round of the conflict began.
While it is commonplace for the Attorney General, the government's chief law officer, to give an opinion on defence policy as ministers draw up their response to a crisis, the advice must be kept a secret.
The Ministerial Code, the official handbook for serving in government says that 'the fact that the Law Officers have advised or have not advised, and the content of their advice, must not be disclosed outside government without their authority'.
The Cabinet Office's team will now attempt to find the leaker, who may be one of the officials or ministers who attended official meetings about the Middle East conflict on Thursday or Friday last week.
Lord Hermer's legal advice has previously attracted criticism after sources said he was acting as a 'freeze on government' by trying to block various government policies on legal grounds.
He has also been criticised for controversial clients he represented while working as a barrister, including the alleged terrorist Abu Zubaydah and Gerry Adams.
The Labour peer is a former human rights lawyer and long-time friend of Sir Keir Starmer.
His position on the Israel-Iran conflict has since been backed by Left-wing Labour MPs, including Dame Emily Thornberry, the former shadow attorney general and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
She said on Thursday that 'any of those justifications' for war in the UN Charter do not apply because the UK is 'not under threat ourselves,' an air strike would not be defensive and there is no Security Council resolution.
Downing Street, the Cabinet Office and the Attorney General's Office declined to comment.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

17 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

PETER HITCHENS: MPs have voted to destroy even more unborn babies - and to begin the abortion of the old

Are we ruled by some sort of death cult? In just one week, our Parliament has voted for the even more ruthless destruction of unborn babies, and to begin the abortion of the inconvenient old and ill. You may be quite sure that the abortion of the old, once it gets into full swing, will solve a lot of problems for the middle-aged, afraid of nursing home fees and of losing their inheritances. Does anyone really doubt this?

Daily Mail​

17 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

The whole world knew the US and Israel were going to strike Iran - but Keir Starmer was blindsided. And that's just the start of the humiliation, reveals DAN HODGES...

Two months ago I was sitting in a hotel in Tel Aviv, where I wrote the following words. 'According to several senior political, military and diplomatic sources, the United States and Israel are preparing to launch a strike on Iran that will finally eradicate the threat posed by the country's programme.' "This should have been avoided a long time ago,' a senior Israeli government source told me. 'It's time to draw a line.''

The Independent

27 minutes ago

• The Independent

Hope for end to ‘cruel experiment' of indefinite jail terms that have seen phone thieves trapped for up to 20 years

Desperate prisoners who have been trapped in jail for up to 20 years for minor offences such as stealing a mobile phone could finally get a release date under landmark new proposals. Britain's leading justice experts have issued a string of recommendations to finally end the 'cruel experiment' of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) jail terms, which have left inmates languishing in prison for up to 22 times longer than their original sentence. A panel led by Lord John Thomas, who was once Britain's most senior judge, convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, will urge the government on Monday to take 'long overdue' action to restore hope to 2,614 inmates still trapped under the outlawed jail terms, which have been described as a 'monstrous blot' on our justice system. IPP jail terms were abolished in 2012, but not retrospectively, leaving those already jailed incarcerated indefinitely. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. Successive governments have refused justice committee recommendations to resentence them, despite recognising the jail term was a mistake. At least 94 IPP prisoners have taken their lives in custody as they lost hope of being freed, with a further 37 self-inflicted deaths among those released but left living in fear of being hauled back to jail indefinitely for minor breaches of strict licence conditions. On Monday, the expert panel will set out six recommendations to the Ministry of Justice to finally give those languishing in prison a release date and end the cycle of recall. Lord Thomas told The Independent: 'We must not go on perpetuating this injustice.' The proposals would see: Every IPP prisoner given a release date at their next review by the Parole Board within a two-year window, with plans to prepare them to be safely freed Decisions to recall IPP prisoners only made as a last resort, with independent scrutiny by a district judge or senior parole board member Mental health aftercare support for every released IPP prisoner, in recognition of the harms caused by the sentence The government has said ministers will 'carefully consider' the recommendations. In the 25-page report, due to be presented at an event in parliament, Lord Thomas warns: 'It is long overdue for those whose lives continue to be blighted by this sentence to be released from its clutches. 'There are only two options given the government's rejection of resentencing: (1) do nothing new and let those subject to IPPs continue with the real risk that many will languish in prison until they die; or (2) adopt our proposals. 'Our proposals provide a route to ending this grave injustice while protecting the public.' The member of the House of Lords, who served as lord chief justice from 2013 to 2017, believes the 'practical solutions' could be the last chance to help those on the jail term, which has been condemned as 'psychological torture' by the UN. Despite agreeing that the sentences are a 'terrible stain', Labour's prisons minister James Timpson has repeatedly said the government will not resentence IPP prisoners because it would result in serious offenders being released automatically without licensed supervision. Instead, the government has urged prisoners to work towards release by the Parole Board through the refreshed IPP Action Plan. However, Lord Thomas believes the measure is 'not enough' and it will leave some desperate inmates stuck in prison for the rest of their lives. He said it is 'absolutely clear' that without action, many will resign themselves to lifelong institutionalisation or take their own lives. Urging the state to take responsibility for its own mistakes, he insisted 'enough is enough', noting that if these prisoners had committed their crime a day after the sentence was abolished, they would have long been freed. 'It is time to address this problem in the way we have set out, which produces justice and minimises risk as much as possible,' added the judge, who last year backed The Independent's campaign to review IPP sentences. Andrea Coomber KC, chief executive of the Howard League, described the jail term as a 'cruel experiment' that has been perpetrated upon these prisoners by accident. Even the architect of the flawed 99-year sentence, Labour's former home secretary David Blunkett, has described it as the 'biggest regret' of his career. 'I spend a lot of time visiting people in prisons, I have met people who aren't engaged in IPP forums, who have given up hope,' Ms Coomber told The Independent. 'They have settled into the idea that they are going to die in prison. That is a monstrous blot on our justice system that people would feel that justice has let them down that much.' By ensuring they would get a release date, those prisoners would re-engage with the Parole Board and the steps for their rehabilitation, she added. 'Fundamentally, it will be a way to restore hope to people who have lost all hope, while protecting the public,' she said. It will also have the 'happy side effect' of freeing up a lot of prison places as the government grapples with an overcrowding crisis, she added. In April, The Independent revealed that incarcerating IPP inmates cost taxpayers £145m in 2024, on top of an estimated £1.6bn spent since the sentence was abolished. Any cost to implementing the changes would be 'more than covered' by the savings of releasing them, the report said. Other proposals from the panel, which also comprised a retired High Court judge and vice-chair of the Parole Board, leading forensic psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, legal experts and a former IPP prisoner, would see those handed indeterminate sentences when they were children (known as DPP jail terms) given a release date within one year of their parole review. They have also called for an enhanced process for people to appeal their IPP sentence, the right for annual licence termination reviews in the community and the ability for IPP jail terms to become 'spent' after an appropriate period. Currently, those who serve an IPP sentence must disclose information about their conviction for life, which can be 'hugely stigmatising' as they try to rebuild their lives and find work, Ms Coomber said. Campaigner Shirley DeBono, whose son Shaun Lloyd has spent 14 years behind bars after multiple recalls for stealing a mobile phone in 2005, welcomed the proposed measures. 'I think it's a great idea. I urge Shabana Mahmood [justice secretary] and James Timpson to take the proposals on,' said the mother, who co-founded the IPP Committee in Action. A spokesperson for the United Group for Reform of IPP (Ungripp) said that while it will always push for a full resentencing process, it supports the measures. 'We hope that the government will seriously consider these alternatives and give back some hope to those who are in prison either on recall or who have never been released,' they added. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'It is right that IPP sentences were abolished, and we will carefully consider the recommendations in this report. 'We are determined to make progress towards safe and sustainable releases for those in prison, but not in any way that undermines public protection.'