THE Attorney General and failed Conservative leadership candidate Suella Braverman is facing a backlash from government lawyers after banning them from telling ministers that policies are unlawful.
A former attorney general has described the position as “idiotic”.
Braverman sent guidance to lawyers explaining that they should give a percentage chance of policies being challenged, rather than detailing their legality, the Telegraph has revealed.
Lawyers will state both the likelihood of a challenge and then of winning or losing – with only line managers or legal directors able to sign off on a verdict of a policy being "unlawful".
While lawyers questioned the point of their role following Braverman’s message, government sources have expressed anger after being challenged on the legality of their policies.
A Home Office source told the newspaper: “If we come and say we want something, they come back and say it is unlawful and we think there is a 70% chance of losing.
“They don’t go: ‘Well, there is a 30% chance a judge would find it lawful so we should go for it. There will be some who say it is unlawful because of x, y, z reasons rather than: ‘How can we make a legal argument that it is lawful’?”
READ MORE: Look at the mess in Dover, and then look at Ireland thriving in the EU
Former Tory MP Grieve described the decision as “very strange” given that Boris Johnson is already “rather keen” on pressing on despite the advice of lawyers.
He said: “I can't really work out why this has been done," he said. "Clearly, the duty of government lawyers is always – if they're confronted with a problem, and asked whether something is likely to be successfully challenged – to give their best advice based on their understanding of the law.
“But if they consider that something on the basis of precedent and its nature is unlawful, they should be in a position to be able to say so.”
Concerns have been raised over the specific impact when considering international law.
When it comes to obligations in international law – such as on treaties – there may be no arbitration process.
This means Braverman’s move could make it easier for ministers to breach international law.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel