Latest news with #RichardHermer
Telegraph
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Why the knives are coming out for government bogeyman Lord Hermer
Within hours of entering No 10, Sir Keir Starmer made an important decision. All but one of the shadow cabinet would retain the briefs they had held in opposition. The exception? Richard Hermer, the Prime Minister's long-time friend. Starmer handed him a peerage, the post of Attorney General and a brief to restore Britain's reputation abroad. Yet 12 months on, there are few appointments that have caused more controversy. Disdained on the Right as a bogeyman and increasingly disliked on the Left, his pronouncements leave many of his Labour colleagues cold. Hermer's arrival in Whitehall was greeted with a chorus of delight by his old chums in the field of human rights. Gushing tributes were reported in the liberal press. 'A career that has never been distracted by politics,' remarked Geoffrey Robertson KC, the founder of Hermer's old Doughty Street chambers (once Starmer's stomping grounds too). At the time, this political virginity was seen by some within Downing Street as a positive. Hermer was the first incumbent since 1922 not to have served in Parliament before his appointment. But now there is a growing sense his lack of nous is being regarded within the highest levels of government as a problem. His latest controversy has been to hand himself an effective 'veto' across swathes of Starmer's agenda. One of Hermer's first acts in office was to revise the Attorney General's guidance on legal risk to government lawyers. This edict assumes that every decision made by a minister will be subject to a legal challenge. Some 23 references to 'international law' were inserted, as was a new 'snitch clause', telling officials to inform him if ministers may be about to break the law. It follows his declaration at the European Court in Strasbourg that he would 'never' refuse to comply with judgments handed down there. The consequences for domestic policymaking are obvious. Ministers, including those in cabinet, accuse Hermer's changes of slowing down a slew of policy across government. This includes the Border Security Bill and the ' Hillsborough Law ' to establish a duty of candour for public officials. The former is necessary to deal with the Channel crossings emergency; the latter is a touchstone issue for some northern MPs. Lord Maurice Glasman, the founder of Blue Labour, spoke for others when he called Hermer 'an arrogant, progressive fool who thinks that law is a replacement for politics'. In foreign affairs, the Attorney General's influence is obvious too. His advice was cited in the decisions to hand sovereignty over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and suspend certain arms sales to Israel. More recently, there was America's bombing of Iran, when Hermer reportedly warned that any UK involvement beyond defensive support would be illegal. That has infuriated some within the world of military and diplomatic affairs, who argue that their hands are being tied by a lawyer who does not appreciate the need for maximum flexibility in responding to rapidly moving events overseas. Having antagonised his colleagues privately, Hermer's public pronouncements are causing concern, too. Speaking to the Rusi think tank at the end of May, the Attorney General compared calls to quit the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) with the early days of Nazi Germany. He swiftly apologised, but the damage was done. Part of Hermer's problem is institutional. Ensconced in the rarefied atmosphere of the House of Lords, he is shielded from the noise and drama of the Commons. Against David Wolfson, the genteel Tory spokesman in the Lords, Hermer has held his own. But down the corridor, Robert Jenrick – the heat-seeking missile of the Tory frontbench – is determined to take him down. The Shadow Justice Secretary and his staff spend their days plotting the downfall of the man they call 'the Herminator'. For Jenrick and others, Hermer is the living embodiment of judicial overreach. It was Margaret Thatcher who distinguished between the rule of law and rule by lawyers. Hermer seems, to many Tories, to exploit the veneer of the former to enable the expansion of the latter. After 14 years of frustration in government, there is an increasingly Cromwellian attitude to Hermer's constant evocation of international law. He has featured prominently in Jenrick's prolific online content. One such video has images of the clients whom the Labour peer represented prior to entering government: Gerry Adams, Shamima Begum, five terrorists linked to al-Qaeda. It is a compelling critique which has some within the Labour party now asking if Hermer is causing more trouble than he is worth. Against this onslaught, the Attorney General has declined to come out swinging. He has given few interviews and rarely seeks to explain his past career and the work he is doing in office. 'He is so easy to attack,' boasts one Tory MP. This frustrates his allies within government. They argue that Hermer is unfairly maligned for merely trying to follow his Prime Minister's instructions. The Rusi speech, which attracted such opprobrium, is believed to have been cleared by No 10 in the usual way. Dominic Cummings and others have fulminated against the edicts of government lawyers for years; ministers have always resented colleagues who trample on their turf. Hermer is nothing new in these respects. One older MP argues that 'whomever was in that role, they'd be getting it in the neck', as a global migration crisis continues to test international law to breaking point. Yet there persists a sense amongst those who have brushed up against Hermer that he is not being as helpful as he could be. 'A blocker, not a builder' is the judgement of one aide. Another asks, despairingly: 'Does he have any instinct of self-preservation?' And for those in the Commons, fearful of re-election in four years' time, the perceived lordly attitude of Hermer and his team, indifferent to their electoral needs, is regarded as profoundly tone-deaf. In a party as tribal as Labour, there are doubts about whether he is truly one of the team. 'He's like Starmer,' says one former advisor. 'He has no politics, except the law. He is just not a Labour person.' A gaggle of young MPs, like Dan Tomlinson, Jake Richards and Mike Tapp have now taken it on themselves to publicly call for reform of the ECHR and its overinterpreted protections on torture and family life. Hermer's allies insist that he is on board with this mission, pointing to his Rusi speech. Yet those in the pro-Reform camp argue that it is Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, who is driving this change, rather than Hermer and the Attorney General's Office. Cut off from the Commons and lambasted in the press, Hermer's position looks to be an unhappy one. Cynics wonder whether Starmer – or those around him – are content to keep using the Attorney General as a lightning rod, to absorb flack that would otherwise be directed at No 10. But the Prime Minister has shown a willingness before to protect his allies, like Ed Miliband, who helped get him selected for his safe seat in 2015. The Energy Secretary had been widely tipped for the sack before – but is now thriving as of the big winners of the recent Spending Review. Starmer and Hermer are genuine friends; the former even gave the latter's toast when he took silk in 2009. Yet unlike Miliband, with his legions of eco-friendly backbenchers, Hermer lacks a power base. 'International lawyers don't have many votes,' jokes one within Labour. Isolated and attacked, after a difficult first year in office, the knives are out for Lord Hermer as he prepares for the travails of the next 12 months. Not all his colleagues think he will last the course.
Spectator
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
What Richard Hermer gets wrong about international law
Our two-tier Attorney General, Lord Richard Hermer, is in the news again. The controversial lawyer and 'old friend' of the Prime Minister, has issued new instructions to government lawyers which give him an 'effective veto' over all government policy and which also create a network of legal spies within government departments. The Hermer doctrine revealed by these instructions relies on an extreme view of international law, which seeks to limit the power of ministers to govern and parliament to legislate. The Attorney General wrote that: The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law, even though they operate on different planes: the government and Ministers must act in good faith to comply with the law and in a way that seeks to align the UK's domestic law and international obligations, and fulfil the international obligations binding on the UK. To honour the UK's international obligations, the government should not invite parliament to legislate contrary to those international obligations. What makes all this particularly odd is that 'international law' is very different to English law In case that wasn't clear enough, the guidance also says that allowing ministers to breach international law could 'incur significant consequences, be they legal, political, diplomatic and/or reputational'. Framed in legal language, what is this saying? That the 'rule of law' requires the government to comply with international law, insists that ministers change British law to comply with international law, and that the government may not even seek to legislate to limit how an international treaty is imposed. This is wrong. A basic principle of our constitution is that we have a dualist system, where domestic law can diverge from international law. Our parliament is sovereign, and that international law has no effect on our domestic law unless parliament legislates to that effect. This is an important protection against ministers being able to create law by signing international treaties. Hermer's guidance also makes it very clear that he does not trust his ministerial colleagues, as it creates an obligation for government lawyers to report on ministers: If it is proposed to proceed with a course of action despite advice that it would be unlawful to do so because it is not supported at least by a tenable legal argument, law officer advice must be sought immediately. This means that if a minister listens to a government lawyer's advice and decides to act, or to govern anyway, then that lawyer should report them to the Attorney General's office. No doubt the Attorney General would then visit the minister concerned to explain why international law is supreme, and they are not allowed to govern. When I put this to the Attorney General's office, they issued a statement saying, 'this government is committed to upholding its obligations under international law' and went on to add that 'we are clear that while government lawyers advise ministers, it is always ministers that make decisions on policy as has been the case under successive governments'. It is not clear how Hermer reconciles this with his legal snoops and insistence that ministers must change domestic law to mirror international law. The Attorney General has made it clear how much he values international law. At the Bingham Lecture in November 2024, Hermer said: International law is not simply some kind of optional add-on, with which states can pick or choose whether to comply. It is central to ensuring our prosperity and security, and that of all global citizens. As will develop later, our reputation as a country that can be trusted to comply with its international law obligations, and has a robust adherence to the rule of law, is essential to our ability to grow the economy. What makes all this particularly odd is that 'international law' is very different to English law. There isn't an international parliament creating laws, nor an international government, nor a world court issuing binding judgments. 'International law' is the term given to describe the aggregated treaties, international agreements and agreed-upon ways in which states act. Yuan Yi Zhu, Senior Research Fellow at Policy Exchange's Judicial Power Project, assistant professor at Leiden University and international law expert, told me that while: International law is 'law'…it is very different to domestic laws. Many domestic lawyers make the mistake of assuming the two are equivalent. International law is primarily between states, almost always voluntary and more like contract law. The United Nations charter recognises this and provides a whole raft of non-court dispute resolution mechanisms. International law is not backed by a population, resources or military power, and nation states quite rightly choose to ignore or 'break' these rules when it suits their interests. Hermer's guidance does, grudgingly, acknowledge this, saying, 'International law principally applies between states. It may not give rise to legally enforceable rights or duties in UK domestic law'. Given this, why is the Attorney General instructing government legal staff to behave as though such rights and duties exist? Yuan Yi Zhu says that: Hermer is wrong in two ways. Firstly, because he misunderstands international law. He is not an international law specialist. He's an English barrister who has practised English law with international elements in England. Secondly, he oversteps his constitutional role. It is not the role of the AG to control other departments nor parliament, which he comes dangerously close to. Hermer's fanatical devotion to international law is driving his power grab. Far from protecting the rule of law, he is a threat to it. He has acted to deliver two-tier justice, he believes that criticism of the judiciary is wrong and now he seeks to prevent ministers of the Crown executing their duties. This lawyer seeks rule by lawyers and would make this country ungovernable if he had his way. There are people within government who recognise the threat Hermer's fanaticism poses. It is clear he does not trust his colleagues. They should make their feelings known to the Prime Minister, who must decide between rule by a friendly lawyer and the rule of law.
Daily Mail
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
The least patriotic man EVER to hold high office? Even worse, Lord Hermer of Chagos, who's just grabbed unprecedented new powers, isn't even elected – but was appointed Attorney General by his Leftie lawyer chum Starmer, writes MATT GOODWIN
Thirty years ago, a largely unknown US academic named Christopher Lasch made a bold prediction: that the next revolt in Western politics would not be the people rising up against the elites, but the elites rising up against the people. Three decades on and that prophecy seems to be coming true. Running Britain today is a vast bureaucratic, political and legal cabal that thinks it is not of the people, but above them. Nobody embodies that arrogant elite more perfectly than Lord (Richard) Hermer, the Government's Attorney General and most senior legal adviser. Since July last year, when the former barrister stepped into this historic role, his official remit has been to safeguard our country and its citizens. Yet, all too often, Hermer's words and deeds suggest the opposite. Now it has emerged that the Attorney General has handed himself an 'effective veto' over state policy, by ordering civil servants to tell him if they suspect ministers' decisions could break the law. Hermer has inserted this so-called 'snitch clause' in new guidance to Government lawyers – deemed a 'power grab' by critics. Worse, he has watered down instructions which were originally designed by his Tory predecessor Suella Braverman to prevent lawyers from blocking Government policy. Former Tory attorney general Sir Michael Ellis has fittingly accused Hermer of 'empire building'. Quite so. Remember, this is an unelected Cabinet figure, hand-picked by fellow human rights lawyer Sir Keir Starmer, who has now effectively given himself the power to act as deputy prime minister in all but name. Indeed, we have already seen the scale of his interference in reports that Hermer advised the Government not to join the US and Israel in striking Iran's nuclear facilities last month. What was his reasoning for not joining our allies in obliterating these potentially apocalyptic stockpiles, enhancing global security and the safety of the British people? Apparently, it could have breached 'international law'. If you need any further proof that we live under the rule of lawyers rather than the rule of law, here it is. The slightest glance at Hermer's CV shows a carousel of wrong-headed decisions hostile to British interests – attitudes that clearly now prevail in the Government. Let's start with his previous work in private practice at the ultra Left-wing chambers Doughty Street, where he met his good friend Starmer. The 'cab-rank principle' supposedly requires barristers to accept any case within their competence, however repellent the client or cause. Yet it is interesting how our Attorney General has managed to represent quite so many figures one might describe as 'enemies of the state' – some of whom he has been accused of representing on a voluntary 'pro bono' basis when the cab-rank rule doesn't apply. They make for a grisly roll call of terrorists and mercenaries. Among them is Abid Naseer, the ringleader of an Al-Qaeda terror cell in north-east England, who was just days from bombing a Manchester shopping centre in 2009. Defending this loathsome creature from deportation, Hermer described MI5's case against the Pakistani student as 'pitiful' and 'far-fetched'. Naseer was later found guilty in America of plotting to detonate a car bomb outside Manchester's Arndale Centre and further killing hundreds of Easter shoppers by placing suicide bombers at the exits. He is now in a maximum-security prison in the US. So I'm not sure how 'far-fetched' it was to argue he was a terrorist. Then there's Rangzieb Ahmed, an Al-Qaeda chief linked to the July 7 terror attacks whose grim 20th anniversary the nation has just marked. Representing this bearded fanatic in 2020, Hermer even argued that the British Government should 'compensate' Ahmed for his alleged torture – in Pakistan. The list goes on. That same year, it was Hermer who argued in favour of reinstating the British citizenship of dim-witted jihadi bride Shamima Begum, who left the UK aged 15 to join Islamic State in Syria. Or take the former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, whom Hermer represented in 2023 against victims of three IRA bomb attacks who were suing him for damages. Hermer later had a key role in Labour's amendment of the 2023 Legacy Act, which means Adams and up to 1,500 other former suspected terrorists are now in line for compensation from the British taxpayer. A brazen and shameful conflict of interest? Hermer won't say: When asked whether he had a 'conditional fee agreement' with the Irishman – meaning he would be paid only if Adams won his case – Hermer replied that he couldn't 'recall'. This ugly record has rung alarm bells among people who truly believe in British interests. These concerns have continued since Hermer took his seat in the Attorney General's office. Yet Sir Keir appears delighted with his work. Yesterday Downing Street said Hermer's 'frank legal advice' is in the 'interests of everyone for the system to work properly'. How farcical. Remember, it was Hermer who signed off the Government's despicable surrender of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius – with Britain now set to spend as much as £30 billion to lease our own military base on the island of Diego Garcia, funding tax cuts for Mauritians. It was Hermer, too, who signed off the controversial prosecution of childminder Lucy Connolly, sentenced to nearly three years in prison for an offensive social media post during the riots following the Southport atrocity last summer. Was Connolly's incarceration really in the public interest at a time when Labour was struggling to tackle prison overcrowding? Many thousands of British people profoundly believe it was not. And it was Hermer who was forced to apologise in May after comparing those who support leaving the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) to Nazis. In a lecture at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, Hermer said calls to leave the convention were a 'siren song' that had been heard before – including in 1930s Germany. In other words, those who would like to see our country have some control over its borders – control suppressed by judges' expansive interpretation of ECHR laws – are akin in their world-view to members of the Third Reich. Apology or not, Hermer's choice of words afforded a compelling glimpse into the boundless arrogance of this over-promoted bureaucrat – who has now, it seems, seized the power to veto decisions of national interest. In the face of such controversy, the clamour grows more deafening every day: Hermer has to go. The Attorney General is, of course, entitled to his perfectly woke opinions. What is intolerable is the extent to which he and his fellow Government stooges appear to believe their views are the only ones that count. As that forgotten academic Christopher Lasch forecast all those years ago, the revolt is now under way. And Richard Hermer epitomises the elite willing to ride roughshod over the views of the British people. MATT GOODWIN is Senior Visiting Professor at the University of Buckingham. You can read more of his analysis at
The Irish Sun
28-06-2025
- Politics
- The Irish Sun
Controversial government minister enjoyed £1,500 4-star hotel stay in Venice paid for by taxpayers
ATTORNEY General Lord Richard Hermer enjoyed a £1,500 taxpayer-funded stay at a luxury four-star hotel, stats show. He and staff racked up the four-figure bill while at an event where he gave a speech promoting stronger EU links. 2 Lord Richard Hermer enjoyed a £1,500 taxpayer-funded stay at a luxury four-star hotel, stats show Credit: Alamy 2 Lord Hermer and staff racked up the four-figure bill while at an event where he gave a speech promoting stronger EU links Credit: Alamy The controversial lawyer, appointed last year by PM Papers released by the Attorney General's Office show £1,523 was paid on December 7. Costs are said to include two aides. A spokesman said: 'The Attorney General's Office remains committed to ensuring the most cost-effective way of travel, delivering best value for money for the taxpayer.' Read More on UK News Lord Hermer has been involved in a number of controversies during Sir Keir's first year in office. He has compared those calling to exit the European Court of Human Rights to Nazis. And The Sun reported yesterday that he called claims the UK has a two-tier justice system 'disgusting'. Unveiling Lord Hermer's Legal Fee Scandal
Daily Mail
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Labour's under fire top legal adviser faces fresh calls to be sacked over claims he is trying to set Government policy
Labour's top legal adviser has sparked fresh anger and calls for his removal by saying that adhering to international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of the Prime Minister's foreign policy aims. Attorney General Richard Hermer said ministers were 'united' on the need to comply 'with all forms of law', saying it was vital to revitalising the UK on the world stage. It comes as questions swirl over the influence of the human rights lawyer on the Government headed by his old friend Sir Keir Starmer, with claims he is trying to set policy rather than provide advice. The Prime Minister is currently under pressure to beef up his administration's lukewarm support for the US strikes authorised by Donald Trump against nuclear targets in Iran. Critics warned that ministers had been left 'paralysed' over the issue after Lord Hermer advised that joining Israel 's attacks on Iran, which began on June 13, would break international law, something that is disputed. Foreign Secretary David Lammy repeatedly refused to say on Monday that the strikes were the 'right thing to do' and told MPs the issue of British support was not a 'binary question'. Although Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden toughened up the Government's stance on Tuesday, Nato and Germany offered full-throated backing from the start. And Lord Hermer has been accused of a major role in 'surrendering' the Chagos Islands, the UK's last territory in the Indian Ocean, to adhere to a non-binding ruling by the International Court of Justice. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Lord Hermer should be sacked, saying: 'Attorneys general are legal advisers, not policy makers. 'Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary couldn't answer basic questions, but Lord Hermer is waxing lyrical well beyond his brief. The attorney is not there to run foreign policy or call people Nazis. His position is untenable.' Speaking to the BBC before the latest Middle East conflict, Lord Hermer said: 'Is international law important to this Government and to this Prime Minister? Of course it is. 'It's important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country. 'And so I am absolutely convinced, and I think the Government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law – domestic law and international law – we serve the national interest.' He added: 'No one wants to do deals with people they don't trust. No one wants to sign international agreements with a country that's got a government that's saying, well, "We may comply with it, we may not". 'We do. We succeed. We secure those trade deals, which are essential for making people's lives better in this country. 'We secure deals on migration with France, with Germany, with Iraq, that are going to deal with some of the other fundamental problems that we face, and we can do that because we comply, and we're seen to comply and indeed lead on international law issues. 'Being a good faith player in international law is overwhelmingly in the national interests of this country.'
