Court blocks move to put Blair on trial over Iraq War

● Former Iraqi army chief fails in bid to overturn Lords’ decision

The High Court in London has blocked a bid by a former chief of staff of the Iraqi army to bring a private prosecution against Tony Blair over the Iraq War.

General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat has accused Mr Blair, while UK prime minister, of committing a “crime of aggression” by invading Iraq in 2003 to overthrow president Saddam Hussein.

The general wanted to prosecute Mr Blair and two other key ministers at the time – foreign secretary Jack Straw and attorney general Lord Goldsmith.

His lawyers asked the court for permission to seek judicial review in an attempt to get the Supreme Court, now the highest court in the land, to overturn a ruling by the House of Lords in 2006 that there is no such crime as the crime of aggression under the law of England and Wales.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the general’s application, saying there was “no prospect” of the case succeeding.

The case was brought after Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused to issue summonses in November last year on the grounds that the exministers had immunity from legal action, and in any event the current Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, would

0 Tony Blair visits British troops in Iraq following the 2003 invasion have to give consent. The general lives in Muscat, Oman, does not possess a passport and cannot travel to the UK.

The UK was part of the coalition led by the US which invaded Iraq after American president George W Bush and Mr Blair accused Saddam of possessing weapons of mass destruction.

The general’s QC, Michael Mansfield, said at a recent oneday hearing that the inquiry into the invasion conducted by Sir John Chilcot, which concluded with a report published in July last year, justified the prosecution of Mr Blair.

Mr Mansfield said the main findings were contained in a paragraph early in the 12-volume report and could be summarised as concluding that Saddam did not pose an urgent threat to the interests of the UK, and the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction had been presented with “unwarranted certainty”.

It also concluded that peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted and that the war in Iraq was not necessary.

But the High Court ruled: “In our opinion there is no prospect of the Supreme Court holding that the decision in Jones was wrong or the reasoning no longer applicable.”

The Law Lords ruled that, although the crime of aggression was a crime under international law, it had not been incorporated or assimilated into domestic criminal law.