The human rights lawyer who led the hounding of British troops over the Iraq War faced disgrace yesterday as he admitted drumming up the claims against them.
In a humiliating retreat, Phil Shiner pleaded guilty to a string of misconduct charges and confessed he acted without integrity when he accused soldiers of war crimes. The disgraced businessman – who now faces being fined thousands of pounds – even took the extraordinary step of admitting that he should be struck off.
The admission was a major vindication for the Daily Mail, which exposed how Mr Shiner paid an agent thousands of pounds to encourage Iraqis to make abuse claims against British troops.
We revealed how the agent – Abu Jamal, 59 – cold-called Iraqis and generated hundreds of cases for Mr Shiner’s now-collapsed law firm, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL). The firm was behind the vast majority of the 3,389 complaints submitted to the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat), alleging murder and ill-treatment against British troops. Many have since been found to be nothing more than baseless smears, but the controversial £57million inquiry is still investigating hundreds of soldiers.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said last night: ‘Phil Shiner made the lives of soldiers a misery by pursuing false allegations of torture and murder.
‘It was on behalf of those soldiers that we complained about Mr Shiner’s actions and finally he has admitted he was reckless and acted without integrity. He should now apologise to the soldiers whose reputations he attempted to traduce.’
Meanwhile, former Army Captain Johnny Mercer – a Tory MP who campaigned on behalf of hounded British troops – said Ihat should be shut down and the cases thrown out.
He told the Mail: ‘Phil Shiner’s evidence has driven the majority of claims submitted to Ihat. It is sad that it has taken him to fall on his sword. We should have been more robust in defence of our guys. Ihat should now close.’
Ihat was set up in 2010 by the Labour government to fulfil Britain’s obligations under the Human Rights Act. It started off with a few dozen cases but by March 2016, the number of allegations jumped to more than 3,000. Most of them were submitted by PIL.
Mr Shiner – who was handed taxpayers’ millions in legal aid – also handed files on soldiers to the International Criminal Court and launched civil claims in the courts. But in June this year, his lengthy pursuit of veterans came to an end as he was charged by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for misconduct. By August – after he was told PIL would face a tribunal and the Government pulled its legal aid – the firm closed down.
Yesterday a disciplinary tribunal sat for the first time in public – after Mr Shiner backed down in his fight to have it heard in secret on the grounds he was unwell. The case management hearing in London heard how Mr Shiner was charged with 24 allegations of misconduct.
He admitted acting without integrity, recklessly and one charge of professional misconduct, but denied acting dishonestly. Mr Shiner also denied ‘serious allegations’ that he misled the £31million Al-Sweady inquiry into claims troops tortured Iraqis and misled a body to get legal aid.
In total, Mr Shiner admitted nine allegations of acting without integrity, including that he made ‘unsolicited direct approaches’ to potential clients through a fixer, understood to be Abu Jamal. Mr Shiner admitted authorising ‘financial benefits’ – described as ‘sweeteners’ – to Jamal to ‘persuade him to change his evidence’ into how clients who went before the Al-Sweady inquiry had been found.
He also admitted acting recklessly by claiming at a press conference in February 2008 that the British Army had unlawfully killed, tortured and mistreated Iraqi civilians at the Battle of Danny Boy. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Mr Shiner’s lawyer had submitted a letter making the admissions on the eve of the hearing. Andrew Tabachnik, putting the case against Mr Shiner for the SRA, said: ‘Even on the basis of his own admissions, Professor Shiner accepts this tribunal must strike him off at the end of this case.’
The tribunal heard that even though Mr Shiner had admitted guilt for several of the allegations, he would not escape a trial for the other ‘serious allegations’. The case is already thought to be one of the most expensive brought by the SRA, with costs reaching more than £475,000 before the trial.
Jayne Willetts, acting for Mr Shiner, said: ‘The SRA has left no avenue unexplored in its pursuit of this case, regardless of cost.’
General Sir Mike Jackson, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, said yesterday’s developments raised new concerns about allegations levelled against British troops.
He said: ‘This admission must bring into doubt a very large number of these allegations and one would hope that the investigation team think long and hard about the ramifications of Shiner’s admissions.’
Be the first to comment