Wednesday marked the anniversary of the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Outrage at his death at the time served as a trigger for public reckoning over US and UK support for Saudi Arabia and its involvement in the war in Yemen.

At that point, the war was three and a half years old, notable for airstrike attacks on civilians and a blockade that has pushed millions into famine – violations of international law, some of which that may amount to war crimes. The murder of a prominent western-friendly journalist seemed to be the final straw.

Fast forward a year, and where are we? The war in Yemen flits in and out of focus in western media, primarily as attacks on Saudi Arabia make the headlines and ratchet up demands for war against Iran. Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman accepts responsibility for Khashoggi’s murder while also denying any personal involvement – and warning of a spike in oil prices if Iran isn’t reined in.

Meanwhile, attacks on Yemeni civilians and a blockade strangling the country continue. Houthis rebels have also violated international law and committed likely war crimes. The US and UK governments continue to offer military and diplomatic support to the Saudi-led coalition, without which the war in Yemen would be unsustainable.

According to the latest UN Panel of Experts report, individuals in the Saudi Arabian and UAE governments, as well as Houthi leaders, may be personally liable for war crimes. Arms-supplying states may also be legally responsible if standards for complicity are met.

Any time such information is put to the UK government, it responds with its stock response that it operates one of the most rigorous and robust export control regimes in the world.

But in June this year, the court of appeal ruled that the UK government had been acting unlawfully in its arms exports to Saudi Arabia because of its failure to assess whether there was a pattern of past breaches of international law by the Saudis.

Without making this assessment it was impossible for the government to rationally assess whether there was a future risk of misuse of weapons, the court said. The government was ordered to re-take its decisions and to commit to not issuing any new licences.

In mid-September it emerged that the government had since “inadvertently” breached the court order by issuing licences for exports to Saudi Arabia that could be used in the war in Yemen.

One strand of the explanation for how this came about is that the Foreign Office was unaware of what the Department for International Trade was doing. But since 2016, officials from departments involved in export licensing have been co-located in the Export Control Joint Unit. The clue is in the name: the change was supposed to facilitate a more joined-up approach.

The breaches of the court order raise serious questions about the basic operation of policy and indicate that the appearance of coherence is more important to the government than cross-departmental effectiveness.

We then learned that UK officials didn’t know that the Royal Saudi Land Forces were active in Yemen (despite the Saudi Press Agency issuing a press release to that effect a year ago), or that Jordan was part of the coalition. This speaks to the hollowing out of civil service capacity, a failure of basic standards of research, or a failure of communication between officials.

If NGOs and activists knew these basic facts about the conduct of the war, the government is in no position to insist – as it has done throughout legal proceedings – that its information is superior, an excuse it has used to refuse to engage with NGO and activists on claims made against it.

We are supposed to be reassured in the face of the breaches that ministers will now be required to sign off on arms exports to the Saudi-led coalition. But since 2015, all exports for precision-guided weapons and munitions have been signed off by the secretary of state for foreign affairs.

Boris Johnson, when he was in post, indicated he was “content” to approve exports days after an attack on a potato factory killed 16 people. So critics can be excused if they don’t find this new measure very reassuring.

Every element of the government’s ostensibly “robust regime” stands in tatters. Liz Truss, the secretary of state for international trade, conceded in parliament last week that more breaches of the court order may come to light.

As the government finalises its review of past decisions, and prepares for another round of legal argument, this time at the supreme court, it is evident that this government will do everything it can to continue supporting Saudi Arabia’s disastrous involvement in the war in Yemen and its reckless role in regional politics.