Newly Released Files Reveal Tony Blair Pressured Officials Over Iraq Death Case Involving UK Soldiers
Documents show the former UK prime minister intervened to prevent civilian or international trials in the case of soldiers accused of killing an Iraqi detainee
Newly disclosed government files indicate that former British prime minister Tony Blair intervened in the handling of legal proceedings related to British soldiers accused of killing an Iraqi man in 2003 while serving in Iraq.
The documents, released by the UK National Archives, reveal Blair’s concern that the matter should not be adjudicated in civil courts or before international tribunals, reflecting political sensitivities around military accountability during the Iraq conflict.
The case centres on the death of Baha Mousa, a hotel worker who died while detained by the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment in Basra after being hooded and held in stress positions, suffering extensive injuries during a thirty-six-hour period in custody.
At the time, officials wrote to Blair noting that the attorney general might consider a civilian prosecution.
In marginal notes, Blair insisted that the case should not be heard by the Crown Prosecution Service or the International Criminal Court, emphasising that it must proceed through military channels instead.
The resulting court-martial of Corporal Donald Payne in 2006 saw him plead guilty to inhumane treatment of detainees under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, becoming the first British soldier convicted of a war crime under that legislation.
Payne was sentenced to a year in prison and dismissed from the army.
Six other soldiers charged in connection with the episode were acquitted.
The files suggest Blair’s intervention was motivated by a desire to manage the legal and political implications of the case, aiming to confine jurisdiction within military courts rather than exposing British troops to civilian or international judicial processes.
The revelations come as part of a broader release of Iraq-era documents that also show diplomatic efforts by Blair’s government on allied military cooperation.
While the documents do not alter the established legal outcome for Payne’s conviction, they shed fresh light on the extent of political influence exerted at the highest level in decisions about how allegations of misconduct by UK forces should be pursued.
The disclosure has reignited debate about accountability for actions during the Iraq War and the appropriate role of political leaders in legal processes involving military personnel.
The documents, released by the UK National Archives, reveal Blair’s concern that the matter should not be adjudicated in civil courts or before international tribunals, reflecting political sensitivities around military accountability during the Iraq conflict.
The case centres on the death of Baha Mousa, a hotel worker who died while detained by the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment in Basra after being hooded and held in stress positions, suffering extensive injuries during a thirty-six-hour period in custody.
At the time, officials wrote to Blair noting that the attorney general might consider a civilian prosecution.
In marginal notes, Blair insisted that the case should not be heard by the Crown Prosecution Service or the International Criminal Court, emphasising that it must proceed through military channels instead.
The resulting court-martial of Corporal Donald Payne in 2006 saw him plead guilty to inhumane treatment of detainees under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, becoming the first British soldier convicted of a war crime under that legislation.
Payne was sentenced to a year in prison and dismissed from the army.
Six other soldiers charged in connection with the episode were acquitted.
The files suggest Blair’s intervention was motivated by a desire to manage the legal and political implications of the case, aiming to confine jurisdiction within military courts rather than exposing British troops to civilian or international judicial processes.
The revelations come as part of a broader release of Iraq-era documents that also show diplomatic efforts by Blair’s government on allied military cooperation.
While the documents do not alter the established legal outcome for Payne’s conviction, they shed fresh light on the extent of political influence exerted at the highest level in decisions about how allegations of misconduct by UK forces should be pursued.
The disclosure has reignited debate about accountability for actions during the Iraq War and the appropriate role of political leaders in legal processes involving military personnel.
