Phil Shiner, who made his name suing the UK Government at taxpayers’ expense, is fighting a battle to keep allegations he made baseless claims against troops secret

A lawyer who has spent more than a decade hounding British soldiers has been charged by his professional body over his firm’s role in making baseless claims against troops.

Phil Shiner, who made his name suing the UK Government at taxpayers’ expense, is fighting a battle to keep the allegations secret.

He wants a forthcoming hearing to be held behind closed doors and details of the case against him kept secret on the grounds of ill health.

The Daily Mail – which has campaigned for an end to the witch-hunt against British troops – is prepared to fight any legal bid for secrecy.

Details of the charges brought against Mr Shiner by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) are unknown, although they are understood to centre on his role in a £31 million war crimes inquiry. A case management hearing in London yesterday was held in secret.

Mr Shiner’s firm, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), was investigated by the SRA – the solicitors watchdog – following a complaint by the Ministry of Defence.

After an 18-month probe, the watchdog decided to refer the case on to its disciplinary tribunal over ‘serious allegations of professional misconduct’.

It can now be revealed that the SRA decided to charge Mr Shiner and a lawyer called John Dickinson, who represented Iraqi claimants for the firm.

A tribunal will now hear the case against the pair and decide whether they should be struck off. If Mr Shiner loses his right to practice, it could cause the downfall of his firm. Mr Shiner is the sole shareholder of PIL, which has received millions of pounds in legal aid.

PIL has lodged at least 188 compensation claims for Iraqi claimants and as many as 1,150 claims of alleged wrongdoing and murder by British troops using the Human Rights Act.

The Mail has previously revealed how soldiers – many suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder – have faced as many as five probes each in relation to a single incident as a result of soaring claims.

If Mr Shiner wins his secrecy battle, soldiers who have suffered as a result will not be able to hear what he is alleged to have done wrong. The SRA decided to refer the case to the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) in April after the year-and-a-half inquiry.

JUDGE: PRESS FREEDOM IS ESSENTIAL TO DEMOCRACY A senior judge has declared press freedom as the most fundamental right in a democracy. Mr Justice Holman told a High Court hearing that press freedom was crucial and people do not ‘understand the gravity’ of court orders which censor names and information discussed in legal cases. His defence of free speech follows the recent decision of Supreme Court justices to support a ban on the public naming of a married celebrity who took part in a threesome. Mr Justice Holman, who sits in the High Court Family Division, said: ‘The most fundamental right in a democratic society is the freedom of the press. ‘Where would we be without a reporter and the whole freedom of the press behind him?’ Advertisement

The SDT has been unable to release any details about the case after Mr Shiner launched a bid to keep his name anonymous.

The allegations against Mr Shiner are believed to centre on his firm’s role in the Al-Sweady inquiry.

The five-year probe published its findings in December 2014 when it exonerated British soldiers of allegations concerning murder and torture in Iraq.

The claims came after the Battle of Danny Boy on May 14, 2004, a fierce firefight which erupted when insurgents from the Mahdi Army ambushed a patrol of Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

Their reinforcements, the 1st Battalion of the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, were also ambushed and after three hours of fighting 28 Iraqi fighters had been killed.

But the Al-Sweady inquiry – named after an alleged teenage victim – found Iraqi witnesses represented by PIL and another firm, Leigh Day, had lied systematically.

PIL was handed £3 million by the MoD to pursue the case.

Sir Thayne Forbes, a retired judge, dismissed the allegations as ‘wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility’.

Following its publication, the Prime Minister ordered the MoD to put together a report listing alleged wrongdoing by PIL. The documents suggested the firm had doubts about the ‘credibility’ of its clients’ evidence as early as March 2013 – but did not withdraw the untrue allegations until March 2014.

Mr Shiner’s firm, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) was investigated by the SRA – the solicitors watchdog – following a complaint by the Ministry of Defence

This forced the Al-Sweady inquiry to take evidence from around 100 additional witnesses, adding at least £780,000 to its total cost.

The MoD dossier also stated that PIL continued to represent one claimant in a separate judicial review after he admitted he had lied about his sister dying on the battlefield.

In further damaging allegations, the MoD claimed PIL used a fixer to trawl for new cases of abuse by making ‘unsolicited approaches’ to potential victims inside Iraq.