Iraqi General Tries to Prosecute Blair: This Is The High Court's Decision

The High Court has blocked a bid by a former chief of staff of the Iraqi army to bring a private prosecution against Tony Blair over the Iraq War.

The news follows General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat allegations that the former Prime Minister’s invasion of Iraq was ‘a crime of aggression’.

The general was also looking to prosecute two other key ministers from Blair’s time in government - foreign secretary Jack Straw and attorney general Lord Goldsmith.

In November last year, Westminster Magistrates Court refused to hear the case on the grounds that the ex-ministers in the case were immune from legal action.

The case was also complicated by the fact that the current Attorney General would also have to give his consent for the case to be heard.

The general, who lives in Oman and does not possess a passport, is unable to travel to the UK.

 He asked London's High Court for permission to seek judicial review to overturn a ruling by the House of Lords in 2006 that there is no such crime as the crime of aggression under the law of England and Wales.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the general's application, saying there was "no prospect" of the case succeeding.

Blair’s government was part of the coalition led by the US which invaded Iraq after Saddam Hussein was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction, and was linked to terrorist groups.

Michael Mansfield QC who is representing Al Rabbat in the case said that the Chilcot enquiry, which concluded in July last year, justified the prosecution of Mr Blair.

The enquiry concluded that peaceful alternatives to war had not been exhausted and that the war in Iraq was not necessary.

Mr Mansfield told the court:

“Nothing could be more emphatic than this evidence. It does not say there was an unlawful war or crime of aggression. It doesn't need to because the criteria are arguably all there in that paragraph."