The cabinet secretary has dismissed Conservative demands for an investigation into whether the attorney general has advised the government on issues in which he has conflicts of interest.
Chris Wormald, the UK’s most senior civil servant, wrote to Robert Jenrick on Thursday saying there was a “rigorous system” to prevent law officers from advising on issues where they may be conflicted.
Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, had asked Wormald to investigate potential conflicts arising from Richard Hermer’s 20-year career as a human rights barrister, during which he advised the former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams and Sri Lankan asylum seekers who took action against the government.
Under longstanding convention, the issues on which government lawyers advise ministers and the content of their advice are not made public to avoid dragging them into political rows.
Senior lawyers, including the former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve, have defended Hermer and said the attacks against him were politically motivated.
Lucy Rigby, the solicitor general, told the Commons on Thursday that Wormald had written to Jenrick, telling him “the attorney general’s office has a rigorous system in place” to avoid conflicts.
Rigby told the Commons: “There’s been a really cynical linking in recent days by the opposition of the attorney general with some of his previous clients. I’m happy to confirm that where the attorney general has conflicts he will recuse himself.
Jenrick asked the cabinet secretary to establish whether Hermer had advised the government on repealing the Legacy Act, which offers immunity to Troubles-era crimes in Northern Ireland, and allowing a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers stranded in the Chagos Islands to come to the UK.
While he was working as a barrister in 2023, Hermer’s clients included Adams, who could be in line to receive compensation if the Legacy Act is repealed, and the Sri Lankan asylum seekers in Diego Garcia.
Hermer has said he represented Adams on an issue unconnected to the Legacy Act, and pointed out that at the same time he was representing the family of a young British soldier murdered by the IRA in the 1970s.
In 2023, Hermer acted for seven Afghan families whose relatives were killed by members of UK Special Forces, and accused senior military officers of covering up war crimes. A public inquiry into the unlawful killings by the SAS in Afghanistan is ongoing.
A media notice about the inquiry earlier this month was issued by the solicitor general instead of the attorney general, which suggests Hermer may have recused himself from advising the government on that issue.
The decision not to disclose this follows the same practice as past Conservative governments. Two Tory sources said that because he had served as standing counsel for the government of Mauritius, Geoffrey Cox did not act for the UK government when Mauritius challenged its sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Robert Buckland, then the solicitor general, represented the UK at the international court of justice in 2018 instead. This was never explicitly announced.
after newsletter promotion
Former government lawyers said there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Hermer. “If you take the view that human rights lawyers are a pain – and some of the opposition do take that view – all of this stuff may be resurrected as examples that he’s a bit of a leftie woke lawyer,” one said. “It’s extremely unlikely that any of that will give rise to any kind of legal conflict.”
Vera Baird, a former Labour solicitor general, said: “Barristers don’t have any personal interest in the people and cases they have represented in the past.”
Grieve said Jenrick’s suggestion that Hermer’s past client roster “now colours the viewpoint of the attorney general is pretty disgusting stuff”.
“Robert Jenrick is trying to mount a campaign denigrating the law officers and the rule of law within government, and arguing that Keir Starmer has sold out to lefty lawyers,” he said.
Colm O’Cinneide, a law professor at University College London, said that because of his background in public law, Hermer might come under more scrutiny than previous attorneys general, but that it would not be helpful for an attorney general to have to give a “running commentary” on potential recusals.
“There is potentially an argument we would just all benefit from more transparency, but on the other hand is the countervailing consideration about the danger of the necessarily close relationships between the attorney general and the government being compromised.”