The book argued that ECHR laws could be applied to more effectively scrutinise military actions.
Lee Anderson and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (Image: GETTY)
Lee Anderson has suggested Sir Keir Starmer is a “threat to our national security” after it was revealed that the now-Prime Minister once advocated using European human rights laws to probe British troops in Iraq. Mr Anderson’s warning was echoed on X by Reform Party deputy leader Richard Tice, who wrote: “Starmer: Use ECHR to investigate British troops. He acted with convicted fraudster against British troops.
“He betrayed our brave veterans; hundreds were hounded due to him. He is hypocritical liar.” The controversy stems from a chapter Sir Keir wrote nearly two decades ago for the 2008 book The Iraq War and International Law, edited by Phil Shiner.
Mr Shiner was later struck off as a solicitor and subsequently prosecuted, pleading guilty to fraud charges related to his pursuit of legal aid for claims against British soldiers.
He was handed a suspended prison sentence for failing to disclose that he had used “fixers” to recruit clients. In the chapter, Sir Keir argued that European human rights law was “much better developed and far more effective” than UN mechanisms in holding governments to account, and accused the UK and US of reshaping international law to suit their own ends.
He also wrote that UN-mandated multinational forces were “usually immune from legal process in the country where it is operating,” highlighting what he saw as a lack of accountability for British troops in Iraq.
The book argued that ECHR laws could be applied to scrutinise military actions more effectively, and Sir Keir assisted human rights organisations in a related 2007 case that helped establish this precedent.
The controversy stems from something Sir Keir wrote in 2008 (Image: Getty)
The legal fallout was significant. Shiner’s claim ultimately succeeded at the European Court of Human Rights in 2012, leading to the creation of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat), which investigated hundreds of British service personnel.
While most cases later collapsed, many troops endured years of scrutiny and reputational damage.
Speaking to The Telegraph, Gen Sir Peter Wall, former Chief of the General Staff, called it “shocking” that Sir Keir had linked himself to Shiner, describing the lawyer as “the bane of our lives” and warning that his association raised questions about the Prime Minister’s suitability to make decisions affecting the military.
Tom Tugendhat, a former Cabinet minister who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said troops had been turned into “whipping boys for the courts,” leaving officers “paralysed by potential litigation”.
Veterans directly affected have also spoken out. Sgt Richie Catterall said Sir Keir “must share some of the responsibility” for repeated investigations into a fatal shooting, while Rachel Webster, wrongfully investigated by Ihat and later compensated, described learning of Sir Keir’s involvement as “deeply distressing.”
Downing Street maintains Sir Keir assisted the court “on points of law, not to advocate for either side.” Human rights lawyer Matthew Jury noted, however, that barristers instructed by intervening organisations are acting as advocates for that organisation, and describing their role as neutral can be misleading.
Sir Keir has repeatedly rejected calls for the UK to leave the ECHR, while critics, including Mr Anderson and Mr Tice, argue that his past legal interventions and links to Mr Shiner continue to cast a shadow over Britain’s armed forces.
A Downing Street spokesman said: “This is a desperate and deliberate misrepresentation.”
