Human rights group appeals against decision not to publish information following the deaths of UK nationals

The government’s refusal to release secret advice about the legality of British drone strikes in Syria is to be challenged by a human rights group.

Rights Watch UK is appealing against a decision by the information commissioner that the Cabinet Office and the attorney general’s office should not be obliged to publish the document.

Without publication of the legal justification, it is argued, public debate over the policy of carrying out lethal attacks on UK nationals anywhere in the world will remain uninformed.

The dispute follows a series of drone attacks in Syria. Two Britons, Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin, were killed in targeted strikes near the Syrian city of Raqqa on 21 August 2015.

David Cameron, then the prime minister, told the Commons shortly afterwards that the attack was carried out on the grounds of self defence because the men were planning attacks in the UK.

The death of Mohammed Emwazi, the British-born militant nicknamed Jihadi John who appeared in Isis beheading videos, last November was also attributed to a joint US/UK airstrike.

Earlier this week, parliament’s influential joint committee on human rights (JCHR) criticised the government for refusing to explain how targets are selected, whether there was an “impossibility of capture” test and whether the laws of war were being misapplied outside recognised armed conflicts.

The JCHR’s chair, Labour MP Harriet Harman, said: “The government has chosen not to answer the most important questions raised by our [committee] concerning its understanding of the legal framework which governs the use of lethal drone strikes outside armed conflict.

“It is simply not good enough for the government to refuse to answer this on the grounds that it is a hypothetical question, when in the course of our inquiry it stated that it would be prepared to resort to such use of lethal force for counter-terrorism purposes even outside of armed conflict.

“Parliament is entitled to expect an explanation of the government’s view of the legal justification for such a use of force before it happens, rather than wait until it does.”

Rights Watch UK submitted a freedom of information request in September last year seeking publication of the advice the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, gave on the legality of the Khan and Amin strikes.

Both the attorney general’s office and the Cabinet Office declined to release the information. The information commissioner upheld their decisions in August.

Rights Watch UK said there was a disparity between the two departments’ responses: the Cabinet Office said it should be entirely secret, the attorney general’s officials said that only part of it needs to be withheld.

Yasmine Ahmed, executive director of Rights Watch UK, said: “The government’s refusal to clarify its position on the use of lethal force outside armed conflict on the basis that this is ‘hypothetical’ is a disingenous attempt to evade the crucial question – one which has profound ramifications for international law and human lives.

“The question lingers as to whether the government is following in the failed footsteps of the United States, reserving the right to kill its citizens outside declared war zones. This would reflect a radical reinterpretation of their international legal obligations – chipping away at long established constraints on the use of lethal force and creating a dangerous global precedent.

“The public has a right to know what the government is doing in their name, particularly when it involves a significant departure in the use of lethal force that could have implications for the security of the United Kingdom if other countries adopt a similar position.”

Appearing before the justice select committee last autumn, Wright acknowledged it was important in such exceptional circumstances that MPs should know that legal advice had been given, but he insisted its precise content could not be revealed.

Asked why, Wright said: “In part, it’s an obligation to ensure that legal advice taken by the government is as full and frank as it can be … It’s also important to take collective responsibility under cabinet government.”

A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office said: “The ICO upheld our decision not to disclose the information to Rights Watch as it was related to, or received from, one of a number of bodies which deal with security matters. We are pleased the ICO upheld our decision.”

