Arms ban faces challenge

Lawyers may seek judicial review to quash export ban

Sir Keir Starmer is facing a legal challenge over his government’s decision to impose an embargo on some arms exports to Israel, the Telegraph reported yesterday. The decision — which he says is not an embargo — was announced a week ago by the foreign secretary David Lammy.

David Lammy MP, not seeing eye-to-eye with President Isaac Herzog of Israel, Jerusalem, 15 July 2024.

Lawyers who are concerned about Lammy’s decision have been active on the political front too. There was a complaint by the former Conservative leader Lord Howard of Lympne CH KC that a ministerial statement repeated by the Lords foreign office minister Baroness Chapman of Darlington was “factually incorrect and grossly misleading”. Unusually, there was also a letter to Lammy signed by a government law officer — though not the one who had advised ministers on this issue.

Sarah Sackman KC, who as solicitor general is deputy to the attorney general Lord Hermer KC, was one of three Labour MPs with constituencies in the London Borough of Barnet who told Lammy that their voters had “expressed deep concern and upset” about the government decision.

The FT reported that “senior government insiders expressed surprise at Sackman’s letter”, given that she is a member of the government. But The Times pointed out that, under the ministerial code, “ministers are free to make their views about constituency matters known to the responsible minister by correspondence, leading deputations or by personal interview, provided they make clear that they are acting as their constituents’ representative and not as a minister”.

The government’s policy on Israel certainly matters more to constituents in north-west London than it does to those living elsewhere. Does that make it a constituency matter? The code is surely referring to local decisions such as closing a hospital or building a prison.

No doubt the Labour whips will have a view. What I want to explore in this piece is the legal challenge that the government is now facing. What grounds have been put forward? Isn’t the decision ultimately a matter of political judgement?