How the attorney general became a legal time bomb for Keir Starmer

With Richard Hermer now under attack from cabinet colleagues over his ‘excessive’ adherence to international law – especially over immigration and the Chagos deal – the prime minister must be ruthless and ditch his friend, says John Rentoul

According to those who know him well, Richard Hermer is a decent person and a good lawyer. But he owes his job as attorney general and his place at the cabinet table to his friendship with the prime minister – which also makes him vulnerable, because he has few allies in the House of Commons.

So when the government is under pressure for its excessive respect for international law, it is no wonder that Lord Hermer is taking so much of the heat. In any conversation about a possible ministerial reshuffle, his name is most likely to come up.

We ought to be clear about why he is in trouble, though, because some of the criticisms of him are more justified than others. The one that counts is that of excessive deference to international law.

It is doubtful that Lord Hermer’s advice was decisive in the government pressing ahead with the ceding of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. The prime minister has hinted at secret reasons of national security for doing the deal, to protect the US base on Diego Garcia. But it is understood that Lord Hermer was in favour of obeying the ruling of the UN’s International Court of Justice, even though it was only advisory.

It is worth noting that the Conservative government wanted to do a similar deal. David Cameron, as foreign secretary, paused the negotiations because he realised how badly it would play with the British public, but then he pressed on before the election, so he must have thought a deal was necessary.

However, until Keir Starmer comes up with a better explanation for the deal – or until Donald Trump quashes it – Lord Hermer is going to be accused of selling out British interests for the sake of legal tidiness, abiding by a non-binding ruling of a court that has limited authority.

The main legitimate criticism of Lord Hermer, though, is his attitude to the European Convention on Human Rights. What he said two weeks ago to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the Convention and its court, was shocking: “I’d like to be very clear: the new UK government will never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or refuse to comply with judgments of the court, or requests for interim measures given in respect of the UK.”

‘The main legitimate criticism of Lord Hermer is his attitude to the European Convention on Human Rights’ (PA)

That may sound uncontroversial to anyone steeped, as Lord Hermer is and Keir Starmer used to be, in Doughty Street radical chic. It may even seem to be mere politeness, telling an audience of ECHR fans what they want to hear.

But it is not what any British minister should say. They should say that the British government always abides by the rule of law, but that it reserves the right to contest any findings of the European Court of Human Rights, and it will put the British national interest first.

That is what Tony Blair and Jack Straw said in the last Labour government. They found many rulings of the court infuriating and looked for ways of pushing back against them. Cameron, when he was prime minister, simply delayed implementing the court’s ruling that prisoners should be allowed to vote for so long that, eventually, a compromise was agreed upon.

Starmer was reminded only this week that the way the Article 8 right to family life is interpreted by British courts is a huge problem in immigration law. Any government, Labour or Tory, needs legal advice that takes an aggressively sceptical stance towards the Convention – otherwise, it just hands propaganda to those legal nihilists who want to repudiate the Convention altogether.

That is why Lord Hermer should go.

Not because he acted as a lawyer for Gerry Adams or Shamima Begum or because he defended Phil Shiner (before Shiner was disgraced, but after it was obvious to those not dazzled by radical chic that he might be). Those attacks on the attorney general actually prompted a rather good defence by Starmer at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday of “the principle in this country that everybody is entitled to legal representation, which means that lawyers do not necessarily agree with their clients”.

But Lord Hermer’s former client list betrays a bias in favour of fashionable liberal causes that reinforces his reverence for a Doughty Street-Matrix Chambers “maximalist” interpretation of international law. Hermer started at Doughty Street, the radical chambers headed by Starmer, and moved to Matrix, the new radical set founded in 2000.

Unless Hermer can toughen up his act in the way that Starmer has since his radical chic years, the attorney general will continue to attract criticism that is really aimed at the prime minister.