Lord Hermer resignation: pressure mounts for him to step down

The controversy over the Al-Sweady affair has reignited after fresh reporting tied the UK’s attorney general, Richard Hermer KC, to litigation that wrongly accused British troops of murder and torture. New allegations have prompted senior MPs to lodge a formal complaint with the Bar Standards Board, thrusting the most senior law officer of the Crown into a storm of professional and political scrutiny.

At the heart of the uproar are long-discredited claims from the aftermath of the 2004 Battle of Danny Boy in southern Iraq. What began as sensational accusations has since been exposed as a complex mix of fraudulent testimony, dubious legal funding, and aggressive litigation that some now say should never have been pursued with the vigor it received.

How the Al-Sweady claims arose and were later disproved

In 2008 a campaign led by solicitor Phil Shiner publicized allegations that British soldiers had executed and tortured Iraqi civilians after combat operations. Those claims reached a high profile and triggered years of legal action and public debate.

The subsequent Al-Sweady Inquiry (2009–2014) found the allegations to be baseless. Its findings described the case as driven by deliberate falsehoods and reckless speculation rather than truth-seeking. Investigators concluded the supposed victims were not innocent civilians but members of the Mahdi Army, an armed group linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Key players, timeline, and the fallout

• 2004: Battle of Danny Boy occurs in southern Iraq.
• 2008: Phil Shiner announces accusations of torture and summary executions.
• 2009–2014: Al-Sweady Inquiry examines the allegations and deems them false.
• Post-inquiry: Evidence emerges that witnesses were recruited through paid approaches and intermediaries; Legal Aid was misused to fund the litigation.
• December 10, 2024: Phil Shiner pleads guilty to three counts of fraud and receives a two-year prison sentence, suspended for two years.

The inquiry’s conclusions and Shiner’s later conviction shattered public confidence in the original accusations and prompted questions about everyone involved in bringing those cases forward.

Richard Hermer’s involvement: legal choices that matter

Recent reporting indicates Richard Hermer acted as lead counsel in civil claims against the Ministry of Defence and actively pursued significant compensation for his Iraqi clients. Critics point out that Hermer’s role was not limited to routine legal representation: he worked under a conditional-fee arrangement — commonly described as “no win, no fee” — and was reportedly being paid at twice his standard rate.

That payment structure is central to the complaint to the Bar Standards Board. Many barristers invoke the cab-rank rule to defend taking on controversial cases, but the cab-rank rule did not apply here because Hermer was engaged under a conditional-fee agreement. Under those terms, he would have had room to withdraw without breaching cab-rank obligations if he doubted the credibility of the claims.

Emails, internal messages and the question of professional judgment

Among the documents cited by critics are internal emails suggesting Hermer remained closely involved in shaping the public narrative around the allegations. One message reportedly advised on how to “get the big story out there,” and contained language about allowing “wriggle room if the killings did not in fact happen.” In another exchange, he is said to have commented that the Iraqi litigation reminded him why he became a lawyer.

These messages have been interpreted in different ways. Supporters argue that lawyers routinely strategize about public messaging in high-profile cases; detractors view the correspondence as evidence of a willingness to press claims despite credibility concerns. Hermer has denied any professional misconduct and maintains his conduct on the case was appropriate.

Professional and political repercussions: complaint to the Bar Standards Board

Senior MPs have formally reported Hermer to the Bar Standards Board, asserting that his continued involvement in the litigation — despite apparent doubts about witness veracity — raises serious questions about his fitness for public office. The complaint focuses on whether Hermer should have withdrawn when concerns surfaced, particularly given the conditional-fee arrangement that freed him from cab-rank obligations.

What the complaint alleges:

• That Hermer advanced and pursued claims even after apparent warning signs about witness credibility emerged.
• That his emails reveal a willingness to shape public perception of the case rather than step back.
• That his acceptance of enhanced fees under a conditional agreement created a potential conflict with professional duties.

Why this matters for the attorney general and for veterans

The stakes are both legal and reputational. For the veterans who faced the allegations, the years of allegations and litigation represented a second trauma after combat. For the attorney general — the government’s chief legal officer — involvement in litigation that later proved fraudulent raises questions about judgment, accountability, and the impartiality expected of such an office.

Critics argue that the political consequences should be immediate: either Hermer should step aside or face mounting pressure to resign. Supporters counter that allegations must be tested by the regulator and that Hermer deserves the opportunity to respond fully to the Bar Standards Board’s inquiry.

What to watch as the regulator and Parliament react

The path ahead includes a formal regulatory review and likely parliamentary scrutiny. The Bar Standards Board will assess whether professional rules were breached and whether disciplinary action is warranted. Separately, MPs who filed the complaint will continue pressing for answers, and media coverage is likely to keep the issue in public view.

Observers will be paying attention to several developments:

1. The Bar Standards Board’s decision on whether to open a formal investigation.
2. Any evidence or testimony Hermer submits in his defense.
3. Further disclosures about how the original claims were generated and funded.
4. Parliamentary moves that could escalate calls for resignation or support within government ranks.

Voices and accountability in the aftermath

The broader debate touches on legal ethics, the responsibilities of lawyers who represent unpopular parties, and how the justice system should handle allegations that later prove false. The Al-Sweady affair remains one of the most damaging episodes for the legal profession in recent memory, with consequences that extend beyond any single practitioner.

Luke Gittos is a columnist and author who has written on human rights law and legal policy; his most recent book is titled Human Rights – Illusory Freedom: Why We Should Repeal the Human Rights Act.

You might also like:

• Anti-corruption minister convicted for corruption sums up Starmerism
• US Increases Bounty on Nicolás Maduro: Hunt Intensifies for Venezuelan Narcoterrorist
• Sandie Peggie: NHS accused of persecution
• ECHR: Lord Hermer’s defense called dishonest and desperate
• Peter Mandelson Epstein scandal: why it could cripple the UK Labour Party’s reputation

Robert Johnson

Robert Johnson is a dedicated columnist focusing on political and social debates. With twelve years in editorial writing, he provides nuanced, well‑argued perspectives. His commentaries invite you to form your own views and engage in critical issues.