Editors' Blog

Attorney General: going for Goldsmith

Posted 20/12/2006 by legalweekblogs.com SU

On 11 June, 2001, Lord Goldsmith QC’s distinguished career as a commercial barrister at the Bar came to a sudden end. The occasion for this career change was his appointment as Attorney General. By that time Goldsmith was well known within the legal profession, both for his abilities as a commercial silk and as a former Chairman of the Bar Council. In his new role he swiftly rose to become a national figure.

It was the controversy surrounding his advice on the legality of the war in Iraq that propelled him to the front pages of the national press. More recently a row has erupted in relation to the cash-for-peerages investigation over whether it is right for one Government minister to have the power to decide whether a fellow minister should be prosecuted.

Hard on the heels of this controversy, which continues to bubble along merrily, came Goldsmith’s announcement to the House of Lords last week (14 December) that the Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO’s) investigations into allegations of corruption at BAE Systems were being discontinued on public interest grounds.

It would seem that Goldsmith himself has been mulling over the sheer volume of news print he is generating. In a speech to the College of Law’s Birmingham branch on 29 November, he pointed out that one of his predecessors, a certain John Cook, was responsible for prosecuting King Charles I to his death before himself being hung, drawn and quartered. He went on cite a number of modern day controversies, including Sir Michael Havers’ decision to prosecute the civil servant Clive Ponting following the leaking of information relating to the sinking of the Belgrano.

“None of this is surprising,” he added. “The nature of the Attorney’s role is such that he is likely to be involved in the legal and political controversies of the day because those are the very cases which are likely to demand his attention.”

But the controversy dogging Goldsmith goes beyond the fact that he has been called on to make some difficult legal decisions. A growing number of people are questioning whether the Attorney General’s dual role as the Government’s senior legal adviser and the nation’s chief prosecutor is compatible.

There are strong comparisons here with the debate over whether it was right for the Lord Chancellor to both head the judiciary and be a cabinet minister. The last Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, argued strongly for the status quo. He lost the debate and the Lord Chief Justice now heads up a reformed judicial system.

In his speech to the College of Law, Goldsmith remarked that it was “a little odd” that the Constitutional Reform Act only considered the role of the Lord Chancellor and not that of the Attorney General. He went on to defend the status quo, using a similar argument to the one Lord Irvine deployed, namely that his seat in the cabinet boosted his authority and ensured that ministers listened to him if he said they were out of line.

Goldsmith, nevertheless, conceded that his responsibilities should be more clearly defined so people understood his role better.

His Labour colleague, Lord Brennan, another former Bar Council Chairman, is not one of those who believe the Attorney General has too many roles. But he does strongly believe that the reform of the judiciary should not have been conducted in isolation and that further change is necessary.

“I think that serious thought should be given to a Royal Commission on a Constitutional Settlement with a timetable of 18 months to two years so it can be ready to be debated at the time of the next general election,” he says. “It should examine the role of Parliament, its chambers and the role of government and the civil service.”

As part of such a process, the role of Attorney General would inevitably come under further scrutiny – not that Goldsmith isn’t used to it.