Mr Shiner is to close his law firm, Public Interest Lawyers

He presents himself as the victim of a great Establishment plot: the plucky outsider and ‘committed socialist’ from humble beginnings pummelled by Tory toffs and military top brass for having the audacity to shine his virtuous light on the murkier workings of the British state.

So, as Phil Shiner now shuts the door on his discredited Birmingham legal practice, he will, no doubt, repeat his claims of a ‘personal vendetta’ against him by the Government and its agents.

But for many serving and retired members of the Armed Forces, the news that Mr Shiner and his law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, are shutting up shop is a cause for celebration.

Having spent years and many millions of pounds (courtesy of the taxpayer) pursuing British troops for thousands of alleged crimes in Iraq and elsewhere on the flimsiest of evidence, the one-time darling of the human rights industry has found that the tables have turned.

And he has clearly found the whole experience so disagreeable that he has decided to quit, ahead of a series of inquiries into the conduct of his firm.

It is a story of arrogance and hubris, one that raises several awkward questions for a legal establishment which, until recently, was only too keen to lionise this so-called champion of the oppressed.

Scroll down for video

Mr Shiner’s detractors call him an ‘ambulance-chaser’, a term of abuse in judicial circles (file photo)

But if Mr Shiner hopes that locking the office door will make the beastly Establishment take its vendetta elsewhere, he is likely to be disappointed.

‘This company has caused huge anguish to members of the Armed Forces and I am pleased it is closing down,’ says Colonel Bob Stewart, Tory MP for Beckenham.

‘But if it’s just a tactic to avoid further action against them, it won’t work. They should be chased and prosecuted – as they have chased others – if they have done things that are illegal. And they have certainly done things that are morally disputable.’

Mr Shiner’s detractors call him an ‘ambulance-chaser’, a term of abuse in judicial circles and one which he deeply resents. Yet, though Mr Shiner and his colleagues have chased countless ambulances – not to mention British Army jeeps, tanks and armoured personnel carriers – we are not talking about your average run-of-the-mill, compensation-chasing, no win-no fee legal pondlife.

This is a man who has risen to the top of the Establishment he professes to despise, complete with an entry in Who’s Who (it’s ‘Professor Philip Shiner’, by the way).

Perhaps the final straw for his firm was this month’s announcement from the Legal Aid Agency that PIL has been banned from further public funding for its cases (file photo)

Let us picture the scene in November 2007. The senior echelons of the legal world are gathered in their finery in the City of London for the Law Society Awards. Armoury House, the Georgian home of the Honourable Artillery Company, the oldest regiment in the British Army, has been hired for the black tie dinner.

All eyes are on the top trophy, the Solicitor of the Year Award for ‘the greatest positive impact on the public perception or reputation of the profession’. And the winner is … Phil Shiner.

The Law Society’s citation commends his ‘tenacious and courageous commitment to the rights of those for whom access to justice would otherwise be denied’, in particular ‘bereaved Iraqi families whose relatives had been killed in incidents in which British soldiers had been implicated’.

Afterwards, Mr Shiner piously explains that this was not so much work as a personal crusade, inspired by his own Christian beliefs.

Mr Shiner and his firm, PIL, rose to prominence after they won more than £2million in compensation for the family of an Iraqi hotel receptionist (file photo)

His decision to take the Ministry of Defence to task, he says, was ‘part of an absolute fundamental commitment to challenging abuse of power in any way that I can think of’.

He goes on: ‘It’s not just the abuse of power that led us into war but the massive abuses of power that had been taking place up to and beyond the occupation.’

There have been many similar baubles over the years. Garlanded with the 2004 ‘Human Rights Lawyer of the Year’ award by the pressure group Liberty, Mr Shiner would go on to be appointed professor in practice law by Middlesex University.

He has received honorary accolades from the universities of Warwick, Kent and the London School of Economics and sits as a vice-president of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers.

By any definition of the metropolitan liberal elite, ‘Professor’ Shiner is right up there at the top table. Which is why his fall is all the more spectacular.

Educated at what he calls a ‘tough’ Coventry comprehensive and Birmingham University, the twice-married father of five has had an impressive journey to the top of his trade.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has backed the closing of the firm

Yet his has been a reputation forged by the trashing of others, notably those of members of the Armed Forces.

There was clear evidence that some British troops had been guilty of serious misconduct during and after the invasion of Iraq.

Mr Shiner and his firm, PIL, rose to prominence after they won more than £2million in compensation for the family of an Iraqi hotel receptionist, Baha Mousa, who died while in the custody of British soldiers in 2003. A subsequent public inquiry into the affair in 2011 described it as an ‘appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence’. Spurred on by their success, Mr Shiner and his colleagues pushed for an inquiry into further alleged human rights abuses, following a bitter battle between British forces and Iraqi insurgents in 2004.

At the root of the claim was that innocent Iraqi farmers had been murdered by British soldiers. But one year into the £31million case, known as the al-Sweady inquiry, the Iraqi families dropped their claims.

In December 2014, the judge leading the investigation found that the witnesses represented by PIL and another firm, Leigh Day, had not just been exaggerating but telling systematic lies.

In the words of Sir Thayne Forbes, the allegations were ‘wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility’. It transpired that Mr Shiner and his firm had been paying an agent to round up potential victims and witnesses and had already trousered £3million from the Ministry of Defence for their part in the proceedings.

The MoD, in turn, reported Mr Shiner and his firm to the SRA, the solicitors’ watchdog, egged on by the prime minister himself.

More than 300 soldiers have now received letters warning them that they may face interrogation over instances of alleged ‘abuse’ (file photo)

After an 18-month investigation, the SRA would refer the case to a disciplinary tribunal because of ‘serious allegations of professional misconduct’. Yet it now emerges that Mr Shiner is fighting to have that upcoming tribunal held behind closed doors, apparently on grounds of ill health.

Public Interest Lawyers, it would seem, do not believe that the public interest extends to themselves. The Daily Mail is contesting the application. For whatever the state of Mr Shiner’s own medical condition, there are hundreds of British service personnel whose own health has been adversely affected by accusations based on the most dubious evidence, if not downright lies.

More than 300 have now received letters warning them that they may face interrogation over instances of alleged ‘abuse’ in 1,500 cases, many of them instigated by Mr Shiner and his firm.

Colonel Stewart says he knows of several ex-soldiers suffering extreme stress as a result and is adamant that Mr Shiner should not be treated any differently.

‘The idea that he and his firm were using an agent to go out and find complaints against our Armed Forces fills me with horror,’ he says. Last year, Mr Shiner insisted that he was simply the target of a ‘vendetta’ by a Government ‘furious’ at the extent of the abuses which he had unearthed.

Several serving and former soldiers are considering taking their own legal action against Mr Shiner (file photo)

Perhaps the final straw for his firm was this month’s announcement from the Legal Aid Agency that PIL has been banned from further public funding for its cases.

On top of that, several serving and former soldiers are considering taking their own legal action against Mr Shiner.

One serving officer has told the Daily Telegraph that he is planning to leave the Army after members of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team interviewed him for two days over a 13-year-old abuse allegation and then turned up on the doorstep of a former girlfriend to ask her if he had ever been abusive in their relationship.

‘We veterans would like to sue Shiner. He has a lot to answer for. Lives have been destroyed while he has gained personally from these allegations,’ the officer added.

Solicitors acting for other groups of servicemen have said that they are considering legal action, depending on the result of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Mr Shiner has not responded to questions from the Daily Mail.