The High Court has blocked a bid by an Iraqi general to bring a private prosecution against Tony Blair over the Iraq War.

General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat has accused Mr Blair of committing a "crime of aggression" by supporting the US-led Iraq invasion in 2003 when he was prime minister.

The general, a former chief of staff of the Iraqi army, wanted to prosecute Mr Blair and two other key ministers at the time of the war, foreign secretary Jack Straw and attorney general Lord Goldsmith.

A ruling by the House of Lords in 2006 said there was no such crime as the crime of aggression under the law of England and Wales.

Chilcot Iraq Inquiry Highlights

The general's lawyers had asked the High Court for permission to seek a judicial review to get the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.


But Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Ouseley rejected the bid, saying the case had "no prospect" of succeeding.

Mr Blair was the main ally of former US president George W Bush as the US led a coalition of countries invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Mr Bush and Mr Blair accused Saddam of possessing weapons of mass destruction - a claim that proved untrue.

Mr Blair's legacy as prime minister has been tarnished by his decision to support the war.

July 2016: Blair responds to Chilcot

The lawyer representing Gen Al Rabbat had argued that the Chilcot report - an extensive inquiry into the invasion - offered the justification for prosecuting Mr Blair.

Michael Mansfield QC said the the report found that Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to the interests of the UK, and the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction had been presented with "unwarranted certainty".

He argued that the international crime of a war of aggression had been accepted by then UK attorney general Sir Hartley Shawcross QC in the 1940s, at the time of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war crimes.

In 2006, the House of Lords ruled in the case of R v Jones - also related to the Iraq War - that although there was a crime of aggression under customary international law, no such crime existed under English law.

In its ruling on the general's bid, the High Court said: "In our opinion there is no prospect of the Supreme Court holding that the decision in Jones was wrong or the reasoning no longer applicable."