PM lied, says Badenoch
Wolfson tells Starmer his comments were wrong, in at least five respects
The prime minister “lied and lied and lied again”, Kemi Badenoch said on social media yesterday. She was referring to Sir Keir Starmer’s comments in parliament yesterday about her shadow attorney general, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC.
Wolfson used more moderate language when he told Starmer in a letter that the prime minister had been “wrong, in at least five respects”:
Starmer’s allegations
At prime minister’s questions yesterday, Starmer had told Badenoch:
She has in her shadow cabinet a shadow attorney general who is advising Abramovich at the same time as we are imposing sanctions on Russia and trying to use that money to support Ukraine.
How can someone sit in her shadow cabinet advising someone trying to escape sanctions and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?
In reply, Badenoch mentioned that Wolfson was “defending veterans pro bono against the actions of this government”.
That drew this reply from the prime minister:
The leader of the opposition talks about the shadow attorney general. Of course, I accept that lawyers have to represent all sorts of crime. Of course, I accept that principle.
The question is whether the shadow attorney general can sit in the shadow cabinet when the Conservative party says it supports us on sanctions. We want the money from Chelsea football club to go to Ukraine. I am not sure whether that is the leader of the opposition’s position. If it is her position, presumably it is something they discuss in the shadow cabinet, advised by a shadow attorney general who is representing the very man whose money we want to send to Ukraine.
If she cannot see the conflict of interest in that, then she shows no judgment and no leadership at all — the same old.
The Labour Party republished some of this as a promotional video.
Wolfson’s response
In an open letter yesterday afternoon, Wolfson told Starmer:
First, I am not a member of the shadow cabinet. As shadow attorney general, I advise the leader and shadow cabinet on legal issues. I have attended only part of one shadow cabinet meeting, to present my legal advice about withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (now published).
Second, I am not advising Mr Abramovich either about UK sanctions or about the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC. I am solely instructed in on-going litigation in Jersey.
Third, the litigation in Jersey is about breaches by the Jersey government of data protection rights and claims arising from those breaches. The UK government is not a party to that litigation, which is not about challenging UK sanctions and has nothing to do with the donation of the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC.
Fourth, the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC are held in the UK. The government says that the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC should go to humanitarian causes in Ukraine. The opposition agrees. There is nothing between us on this issue.
Finally, as leader of the opposition you said: “Lawyers represent clients. Doctors treat patients. The fact a doctor treats a patient doesn’t mean the doctor agrees with what the patient’s beliefs are.”
You said you wanted to “turn a corner” in 2026 but instead you seem to have turned your back on the views you used to hold dear.
Badenoch’s endorsement
An hour after Wolfson had posted this letter on X, Badenoch endorsed it in unusually strong terms:
Veterans
Nearly two years ago, as I explained at the time, a High Court judge in Northern Ireland “disapplied” provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 relating to immunity from prosecution.
That conclusion was subsequently endorsed by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal as part of a broader judgment.
When the case reached the Supreme Court last October, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement — whose members now face prosecution — was given permission to intervene. Wolfson made written submissions and represented the veterans at the hearing without charge. Judgment is awaited.
Comment
Interviewed by Adam Boulton on Times Radio last Sunday, I explained that Wolfson had attended the shadow cabinet only once in the past year and that the issue on which he was representing Abramovich — which had nothing to do with the sale of Chelsea football club — was not being litigated in the United Kingdom.
On the Double Jeopardy podcast published yesterday morning, I explained this once again and argued that the prime minister should get his facts right before commenting on legal issues in parliament.
It’s a pity Starmer was not listening.
Update 1200: Jake Richards MP, a minister at the Ministry of Justice, said this morning:
The Conservatives are tying themselves in knots over Lord Wolfson’s clear conflict of interest.
If, as the Tories admitted for the first time yesterday, Lord Wolfson has recused himself from advising the Tories on Ukraine, that shows they recognise he is compromised by being paid by Roman Abramovich.
They can throw up as many distractions as they like, but they can’t deny the central facts: their top legal adviser has a sanctioned Russian oligarch as a client; as a result he cannot advise them on a key area of policy; and Kemi Badenoch is completely happy with this. It’s an unsustainable position and they know it.
In response to my comment that the issue on which Wolfson was representing Abramovich had nothing to do with the sale of Chelsea football club, Labour sources referred to a report in The Times last month. It quoted Abramovich’s representatives as saying that “£1.4 billion of the £2.35 billion received from the sale of Chelsea cannot be released to a charitable foundation until the investigation and legal action are dropped by the Jersey government”.
In response, Wolfson told me this morning:
As I said in point 3 of my letter to the prime minister, the litigation in Jersey does not involve the UK government, is not about challenging UK sanctions and has nothing to do with the donation of the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC. That is all correct. The claims made in the Jersey litigation and the issues to be resolved therein have nothing to do with the donation of the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC.
As I said in point 2 of my letter, I am not instructed by, and I am not advising, Mr Abramovich in respect of any issues as regards the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC. That is all correct. I am only instructed in the Jersey litigation.
As I said in point 4 of my letter, so far as the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC are concerned, the opposition (which of course includes me) agrees with the government that those proceeds should go to humanitarian causes in Ukraine. We have been crystal clear about that.
I am not sure I am with you on this. A few comments.
This is politics not legal precision.
Whether a person is in the shadow cabinet or advising it is arguably a distinction without a difference, at least in common perception.
It is a genuine question whether it is appropriate for the shadow attorney to advise a person who is in serious dispute (not just a simple legal issue) with the UK Government whatever they are advising them on. It's different from a lawyer with no particular Parliamentary role or none at all providing advice, as Starmer accepted. There is an issue of perception here.
What relevance does the veterans issue have?
Badenoch's post is not just in "unusually strong terms" it's offensive and absurd.
When the world is going to pot, the spectacle of our ‘leaders’ squabbling like this is tragic. The PM should steer clear of trying to score political points on legal niceties.