Chilcot or Crackpot?

Despite a cost of millions and huge media scrutiny, the conduct of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war seems highly suspect. An obvious concern is the questioning of witnesses. None of those called give evidence under oath. They merely sign a piece of paper promising a ‘full and truthful’ account of events. This can hardly be described as robust.

And it gets worse. No judges or QCs are present during questioning and if the witness feels that certain answers are too delicate for public consumption then they can be given in private.

Evidence remains inadequately challenged, even when it contradicts established facts. And legal advice is only sought as a very last resort. The verdict? Rearrange the words ‘farce’ and ‘costly’ and you’d be very close.

And when Chilcot finally rumbles to a conclusion in 2011 what do we get? A set of scripted responses from government officials that’s what. Insufficiently rigorous scrutiny of evidence and an absence of adequate hard-nosed legal dissection of critical decisions. The decisions that led to a full-scale invasion of a foreign power. The decisions that ultimately cost thousands of lives.

Of course it’s not the first time that a major public inquiry has come in for serious stick. Both the ‘Arm’s to Iraq’ and the Hutton inquiries had fierce critics but at least they were logical in their approach. In both, questions were led by QCs and their constant presence ensured that basic legal principles were upheld, and not, as in Chilcot, flagrantly ignored. Witnesses were cross-examined on specific detail and taken to task when it contradicted existing evidence. Legal points could be raised and discussed and advice given at any point during the inquiry, without the need to halt proceedings.

So why was the Chilcot inquiry not set up in the same way and why is it less rigorous than Hutton?  Its failure to appoint a lawyer is curious to say the least whilst its inability to even attempt proper scrutiny of evidence is lamentable. In fact, if you want a role model for an ineffectual inquiry, look no further than Chilcot. It’s as if it’s been designed to fail.

Surely, this can’t be an oversight.


For further information please contact Paula Morris. T: 029 2047 4401 E: p.morris@capitallaw.co.uk

click here to view our blog archive