*/
The government was forced to publish the legal advice from the Attorney General on the controversial Brexit deal.
The six-page letter was published the day after MPs voted by 311 to 293 to find the government in contempt of Parliament for its failure to reveal the contents. The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox QC, had previously published an overview, but argued that disclosing the full advice would compromise client confidentiality and be against the national interest.
The ministerial code states that neither the fact that the law officers have given advice, nor its content, may be disclosed outside government without ministers’ consent.
Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons urged referral to the Privileges Committee for consideration of the motion in its ‘full constitutional and historical context’.
But lawyers were divided over the issue. The former Solicitor General, Lord Garnier QC, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘It is a matter of convention that the law officers don’t disclose their advice – and it used to be the convention that they don’t disclose whether they had given advice on a particular issue.’
In The Guardian human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote: ‘There is no political “convention” more misguided and less examined than the supposed rule that legal advice to ministers must remain confidential.’ He said that public money is spent instructing counsel to provide an opinion on the law, which everyone is entitled to know.
Crossbench peer Lord Carlile said in The Times that as a matter of law, it is up to the client and there was no contempt of Parliament to refuse to publish privileged legal advice.
The government was forced to publish the legal advice from the Attorney General on the controversial Brexit deal.
The six-page letter was published the day after MPs voted by 311 to 293 to find the government in contempt of Parliament for its failure to reveal the contents. The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox QC, had previously published an overview, but argued that disclosing the full advice would compromise client confidentiality and be against the national interest.
The ministerial code states that neither the fact that the law officers have given advice, nor its content, may be disclosed outside government without ministers’ consent.
Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons urged referral to the Privileges Committee for consideration of the motion in its ‘full constitutional and historical context’.
But lawyers were divided over the issue. The former Solicitor General, Lord Garnier QC, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘It is a matter of convention that the law officers don’t disclose their advice – and it used to be the convention that they don’t disclose whether they had given advice on a particular issue.’
In The Guardian human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote: ‘There is no political “convention” more misguided and less examined than the supposed rule that legal advice to ministers must remain confidential.’ He said that public money is spent instructing counsel to provide an opinion on the law, which everyone is entitled to know.
Crossbench peer Lord Carlile said in The Times that as a matter of law, it is up to the client and there was no contempt of Parliament to refuse to publish privileged legal advice.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
Why were some Caribbean nations given such dramatically different constitutional frameworks when they gained independence from the UK? Dr Leonardo Raznovich examines the controversial savings clause
