Mediaboss Marketing

Martyn Day: I understand why what they went through is upsetting, but Im a lawyer. My job is to represent my clients. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

The decision to prosecute human rights lawyers at the law firm Leigh Day was politically influenced, a senior partner has said in his first interview since being cleared of professional misconduct charges.

Martyn Day said he and his colleagues did not need to apologise for doing their jobs and making British soldiers accountable for their actions in Iraq. Speaking nearly two weeks after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal also found his fellow solicitors Sapna Malik and Anna Crowther as well as the London firm not guilty of all 20 misconduct allegations, Day said it was an outrage that the prime minister interfered in the case by making comments about an industry of vexatious claims before the trial.

The seven-week hearing at the tribunal, which ended the day after the general election, cost about 10m and followed a three-year investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The SRA alleged that legal claims advanced by Leigh Day and Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers suggesting that British soldiers tortured and murdered Iraqi detainees after the so-called Battle for Danny Boy near Basra in 2004 had been pursued unprofessionally.

The 31m al-Sweady inquiry in 2014 found the claims of murder and torture to be fictitious. It also revealed that the Iraqi claimants were not innocent civilians but members of a Shia militia, the Mahdi army.

The inquiry did, however, conclude that a number of prisoners had been abused and that British troops breached the Geneva convention. In February, Shiner was struck off for dishonesty and lack of integrity. At a separate, subsequent hearing Day and his colleagues were cleared.

In his rooftop office at Leigh Day, Day radiates an aura of uncoiled relief. Aged 60, he is anticipating the challenge of his next case, against a mining company in Sierra Leone, rather than the indignity of being professionally disqualified.

I have always felt that the SRA, whether directly or indirectly, was influenced by the political background to the case, Day said. It was clear that the government took a very strong interest in the prosecution both of Phil Shiner and us.

And the fact that [the Ministry of Defence] said it was disappointed by the [tribunal] outcome is an indicator. It was totally inappropriate. It was an outrage that the prime minister was putting the boot into us at the time that the regulator was investigating us. [Ministers] said we were bringing spurious claims but 90% of them were settled.

The idea that we apologise to people for doing doing our job, I think thats nonsense

The [government] agenda was clear: they hate human rights, they hate human rights lawyers and theres a big agenda for supporting the army ... They could restore crown immunity [for the armed forces] but I think even [senior officers] are warning that the army should not be above the law.

Part of the SRAs case against Leigh Day was that it should have handed over a list from the Office of the Martyr al-Sadr, a Shia militia group, to the al-Sweady inquiry earlier as it demonstrated the claimants were members of the Mahdi army. Day admitted they should have appreciated its significance sooner.

Normally we would have gone through a [case] file with a fine-tooth comb, he explained, but this [claim against the MoD] had been stayed at a very early stage [pending the outcome of the inquiry]. Even though I now understand how we missed it, I dont move away from the fact that we should have spotted it.

Asked whether he should also express regret to soldiers brought before the inquiry, Day replied: I dont think its appropriate to apologise. I understand why what they went through is upsetting, but Im a lawyer. My job is to represent my clients.

We put their case forward in the best way we can. Thats the way the legal process works. The idea that we apologise to people for doing doing our job, I think thats nonsense.

Leigh Day pioneered the development of class compensation actions, spearheading numerous high-profile cases. Its lawyers have always been careful in assessing clients, Day said. The firm invests millions of pounds [in claims]. Take the Mau Mau case, for example: we only took on clients who had been registered as Mau Mau members before the litigation started.

We had testimonials from QCs who had been against us ... who said one of the reasons we were successful [was that] we had gone the extra mile to make sure that our claims were genuine.

Day acknowledged that the al-Sweady claims turned out to be a very complicated mixture of truth, lies and exaggeration. What was confusing, he said, was Iraqi detainees saying they wanted to get at the truth yet lying in some areas.

The evidence was pretty overwhelming that they were Mahdi army combatants ... [yet] Im convinced they were strongly of the view that those deaths had occurred [in custody]. They put two and two together and made five.

To blindfold detainees, the crack of metal tent pegs banged on chairs by British interrogators might have sounded like gunshots. Asked whether the claimants should have been prosecuted for perjury, Day said they should be given a chance to tell their side of the story.

Other unorthodox events including the armys decision to remove bodies from the battlefield and an army officer throwing computers containing photographs of the bodies into the sea had reinforced initial suspicions, Day said.

The SRA prosecution, he said, would have a chilling effect on those seeking justice in future. Within the world of human rights law, theres been enormous concern, not just in this country but abroad.

I have had many messages saying how relieved people were that [the case against us] was not proved. They were very, very worried that the government could have such influence over the regulator. It will have an impact. We will be that much more wary as to quite what cases we take on. It may well be that there are cases that people wont [touch].

The tribunal will give the reasons for its judgment in August. At that stage, the SRA could decide to appeal to the high court. Both the SRA and the MoD have denied that improper pressure was brought to bear on the SRA to bring the prosecution.

Day said he hopes his ordeal is over. Even though I felt we were innocent, many an innocent man has gone down.

Follow this link:
No need to apologise to British soldiers over Iraq claims, says Martyn Day - The Guardian