Lyell to be called to account for actions in Matrix case: The Attorney General appears at the Scott inquiry today. He faces intense questioning, writes David Connett

THE CHARGE facing Sir Nicholas Lyell, the Attorney General, when he appears before the Scott inquiry today is a simple one. Was he prepared, wittingly or otherwise, to allow men to go to jail by denying them documents which could prove their innocence?

As Attorney General, he is at the helm of the government legal machine. All its resources were brought to bear on three executives from the Matrix Churchill machine tool company accused of illegally exporting equipment to Saddam Hussein's weapons factories.

All maintained their innocence saying the Government knew about their exports and did not mind. To prove it they needed access to thousands of internal Whitehall papers.

But the Government did not want to surrender them, arguing it was not in the national interest to do so. Sir Nicholas advised ministers they had a duty to issue public interest immunity certificates (PII) - so-called gagging orders - to withhold the documents.

The focus of the inquiry's questions today will be on Sir Nicholas's role and his understanding of the theory and practice of law on this point.

He will be asked to explain inconsistencies in his advice to ministers. He permitted Michael Heseltine's PII to be amended after the President of the Board of Trade, questioned the advice he was given.

Mr Heseltine, fearing he was being asked to take part in what looked like a government cover-up, was deeply reluctant to claim PII as he believed the defendants were entitled to the documents, recognising they were vital for the defence.

Sir Nicholas will be asked why assurances given to Mr Heseltine that his concerns would be pointed out to the trial judge were not passed on to Alan Moses QC, the prosecuting counsel, who admitted failing to mention them in court. He will also be asked to explain why he told Mr Heseltine later in relation to another case that ministers did not always have to claim PII - an apparent turnaround Mr Heseltine found 'incredible'.

Sir Nicholas will have to account for admissions by Andrew Leithead, a Treasury solicitor and one of the Government's experts, that certificates were issued for 'administrative convenience' with little or no test of public interest.

Mr Leithead also revealed the numbers and types of government document PII protection was now sought for had expanded. Ministers, far from determining what was in the public interest, simply mechanically signed certificates with little room for the exercise of discretion. Those who refused were 'persuaded'.

Questions will not be confined to the Matrix Churchill case. PII's were also used to powerful effect in the Ordtech trial when businessmen pleaded guilty to violating export controls on arms equipment to Iraq on legal advice, after ministerial certificates denied them access to Whitehall documents they claimed would prove their innocence.

The Attorney General will be asked about his knowledge of the Customs prosecution and whether he should have stopped the case coming to trial. His role in overseeing the 'independent' Customs prosecutors will also be fully explored.

Leading article, page 19