Austen Morgan: Phil Shiner knew Starmer, and Starmer knew him – but wants you to forget that

Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers.  He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.

When, at last Wednesday’s PMQs, Kemi Badenoch was wasting Sir Keir Starmer over ‘Mandelson’ (as he is now known), there was also revealed something of the Prime Minister’s attitude towards UK troops on operations overseas.

Charlie Dewhirst, a new conservative MP, asked a question, after Badenoch’s allotted six:

“Was he [the prime minister] ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers [of Birmingham], to act in any legal case?”

The prime minister replied: “Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.”

That, as we lawyers say, is an implied admission of probable earlier involvement with Phil Shiner, if not with wrongdoing – not that the mainstream media had any bandwidth to deconstruct the answer and interrogate Number 10’s feeble attempts to portray the prime minister as the new best friend of military veterans.

The answer lies in our law reports, which are public documents, and in particular two important cases: Al-Skeini, in 2004-07, which went to the house of lords; and Al-Jedda, in 2005-07, which also went to our highest court.  Both sets of claimants were represented by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers.

The Al-Skeini claimants were the Iraqi relatives of six men killed by UK soldiers.  The legal issue became whether the Human Rights Act 1998 applied in another country, namely Iraq, in which case the relatives would be entitled to effective investigations in the UK.  Five appellants failed, but the father of Baha Mousa succeeded because his son – a hotel receptionist in Basra – died in military detention.

Lord Bingham, the senior law lord, whom I have admired throughout my career, dissented, dealing with the complexities of international law (unlike the advocates before the court): the sovereignty and jurisdiction of two states; customary international law (including international humanitarian law); and a multilateral human rights agreement.  The Bingham dissent, not the judgment, is the landmark.

Sir Keir Starmer QC appeared in the case, one of his juniors being a Richard Hermer from his chambers.  He represented the so-called interveners, who were: the redress trust; the AIRE centre; Amnesty International; the association for the prevention of torture; the bar human rights committee, British Irish Rights Watch; Interights, Justice; the Kurdish human rights project; the law society of England and Wales; and Liberty.

Reading the House of Lords law report (68 pages), one notes: ‘the first five claimants (strongly supported by the interveners)’ (p 176); and ‘the appellants (supported by the interveners’ (p 207).

Number 10, however, was spinning (without scrutiny) regarding the prime minister: one, he was never instructed by Phil Shiner; two, he only popped up in one case representing interveners; three, these were led by the law society of England and Wales; four, these interveners acted only as amicus curiae (friends of the court); and five, he acted pro bono under the cab-rank rule (which does not apply if there is no payment).

All of those points finally fall away when one considers the second case, Al-Jedda.  This concerned an Iraqi asylum seeker who had obtained British nationality, but returned to Iraq – despite his international protection – in 2004, where he was detained by UK forces. Al-Jedda lost in the divisional court on 12 August 2005, in the court of appeal on 29 March 2006 and in the House of Lords on 12 December 2007.

In the two latter courts, the appellant was represented by Keir Starmer QC, another silk who is now an eminent judge, Richard Hermer and two other juniors.  They were instructed by Public Interest Lawyers, and paid presumably out of legal aid.

Al-Jedda appears further in the law reports, between 2009 and 2014.  Keir Starmer became director of public prosecutions on 1 November 2008, and was no longer available.  His former lay client (Al-Jedda) remained in the hands of Phil Shiner and Richard Hermer QC (as he became).

On Monday, 2 February 2026, during departmental questions, Mark Francois, a tory terrier took on the newish veterans’ minister, Louise Sandher-Jones.  He referred to a recent comment of General Sir Peter Wall, a retired chief of the general staff, who had queried the prime minister’s ability – given his legal antecedents as an advocate – to act in the interests of national security.

The minister told the house of commons – with Sir Keir Starmer, just back from China, on the front bench – : ‘I gently remind him [Francois] that the Prime Minister did not work with that individual or with any organisation, and his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law.’

At the end of departmental questions, Francois tried to raise a point of order, seemingly brandishing a copy of the Al-Jedda House of Lords report from 2007.  The speaker called the secretary of state, John Healey.  He began to, as he put it, ‘set the record straight’, only to be cut off by the Speaker: ‘We have had enough of trying to continue the debate – it now ends.’

It is the case that, on the basis of number 10’s spinning: a junior minister arguably misled the house of commons on Monday, 2 February 2026; this was not cleared up in prime minister’s questions on Wednesday; and it remained uncorrected at the end of the week – the line should have been that Keir Starmer did act in the Al-Jedda appeals in 2006 and 2007 on the instructions of Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers.

The Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda cases trundled on to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.  On, ironically the same day, 7 July 2011, Phil Shiner was vindicated twice over.  In Al-Skeini, ignoring the learning of Lord Bingham, the Human Rights Act 1998 was held to bind every UK serviceperson.  In Al-Jedda, he was held to have been unlawfully detained under article 5.

Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda – in which Sir Keir Starmer was intimately involved at the highest levels – are two good reasons why the UK, just as soon as this government becomes history,  should withdraw from the European convention on human rights.