The Chilcott inquiry has now heard its two star witnesses, the Prime Minister and his predecessors, though we have not been promised a report before the end of this year.
The Chilcott inquiry has now heard its two star witnesses, the Prime Minister and his predecessors, though we have not been promised a report before the end of this year. Already at least two questions of particular interest to lawyers have been raised, one procedural and one substantive.
The procedural issue is whether or not there should have been appointed counsel to the inquiry. Obviously it is right that the panel should be primarily composed of military and political experts. But I do not think it is merely pushing the profession’s barrel to suggest that the addition of senior counsel would have aided robust questioning of witnesses. For the inquiry to retain—or, more accurately, obtain—public confidence, raising issues will not suffice; the most rigorous cross examination of contentious points must be pursued. And that is the stock-in-trade of barristers.
The substantive question is the rather more nebulous issue of international law, and
