In fairness to the Minister, I’m not sure she did disclose legal advice. Where there are references to the legal test, I think what she if referring to is that HMG will not grant an export licence under the Act where there is a clear risk that the weapon systems may be used in a breach of IHL. She then goes on to say, that the advice they have received indicates that there is a clear risk. I suspect this is not legal advice but advice from policy officials of the kind described by the Div Court in CAAT (no.2) ([2023] EWHC 1343 (Admin)), concerning arms exports to Saudi Arabia. This was advice from the Export Joint Control Unit (a joint MOD/FCDO team) which had conducted detailed analysis of previous potential IHL breaches by the Saudi armed forces which HMG was aware of, to determine that if there was a clear risk of breach of IHL. That seems to me to be the advice she is describing in her response.
In fairness to the Minister, I’m not sure she did disclose legal advice. Where there are references to the legal test, I think what she if referring to is that HMG will not grant an export licence under the Act where there is a clear risk that the weapon systems may be used in a breach of IHL. She then goes on to say, that the advice they have received indicates that there is a clear risk. I suspect this is not legal advice but advice from policy officials of the kind described by the Div Court in CAAT (no.2) ([2023] EWHC 1343 (Admin)), concerning arms exports to Saudi Arabia. This was advice from the Export Joint Control Unit (a joint MOD/FCDO team) which had conducted detailed analysis of previous potential IHL breaches by the Saudi armed forces which HMG was aware of, to determine that if there was a clear risk of breach of IHL. That seems to me to be the advice she is describing in her response.
Thanks. That was an argument the government tried to run when the question was raised by Lord Wolfson yesterday: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-03-25/debates/78673622-8EB0-4C88-90BE-CB2F54F811FD/IsraelArmsExports