*/
In April 2025, a team of lawyers gathered outside New Scotland Yard to present the Metropolitan Police with evidence alleging that 10 dual British-Israeli nationals have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity (CAH) while fighting for Israel in Gaza. The report that we submitted runs to 240-pages, plus many more in annex, and was the product of collaboration between the Public Interest Law Centre, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and a team of dedicated researchers based in The Hague.
While suspects cannot be named so as not to jeopardise ongoing investigations or prejudice future prosecutions, the report alleges evidence of wilful killing, inhuman treatment, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; and wilfully attacking civilians – all grave crimes under international law. Further, the report calls on the Met Police to investigate, with a view – if the evidence supports it – to arrest warrants and domestic prosecutions.
In the press conference and media appearances that followed, journalists were keen to understand the UK’s obligations under international law, the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the challenges that any future investigations may face and next steps – most prominently, whether we might actually see British suspects on trial for war crimes and CAH at the Old Bailey.
It is long established that the UK has jurisdiction over grave crimes committed abroad – both universally and extraterritorially – and is under a legally binding obligation to exercise that jurisdiction where the evidence suggests that it should.
The principle of complementarity in international law ensures that it is national legal systems that have primary responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of grave crimes, and it is only when states are unwilling or unable to prosecute that the ICC’s jurisdiction is activated.
Universal jurisdiction for grave crimes flows principally from the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which were codified into UK legislation in 1957. Later, the UK’s jurisdictional regime for serious international crimes was bolstered by the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (ICCA 2001), which gives effect to the Rome Statute, establishing the ICC.
The ICCA 2001 ensures that it ‘is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime’, and crimes committed abroad can be prosecuted if the suspect is a UK national, resident, or subject to UK service jurisdiction (‘extraterritorial jurisdiction’).
States have frequently engaged the international courts as a mechanism for seeking accountability in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). As between states, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued various advisory opinions on inter alia the consequences of Israel’s separation wall, the continued occupation, limiting access to humanitarian aid, and alleged violations of the Genocide Convention.
On the question of individual responsibility, in 2019 the Prosecutor of the ICC announced an investigation into war crimes allegedly committed in the OPT; in 2021 the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I decided that the court’s territorial jurisdiction extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; in May 2024, a Panel of Experts, convened by the Prosecutor of the ICC, delivered their report into the ‘Situation in the State of Palestine’, and in November 2024, ICC arrest warrants were issued for Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant and Mohammed Deif, on charges of war crimes and CAH.
It may well come to pass that we see the leadership most responsible for atrocity crimes in the OPT in the dock in The Hague (see James Onalaja’s excellent two part series for Counsel magazine on arrest warrants in the Israel-Palestine situation). Such a possibility does not in any way preclude domestic investigations into foot soldiers and the officers that command them on the ground, followed by prosecutions in national courts.
It is perhaps not surprising that an eyebrow raised in cynicism was the most common response to the suggestion that we might see accountability in domestic courts for war crimes and CAH committed in Gaza. The history of war crimes prosecutions in UK courts is sparse, and justice for international crimes notoriously slow.
Investigations into grave crimes are also frequently beset by challenges in collecting evidence in ongoing conflict zones, accessing suspects, identifying and securing witnesses, and obtaining the cooperation of states with the resources to assist but who might otherwise be hostile to proceedings. Recent attempts at domestic prosecutions for offences committed abroad also forewarn issues pre-trial, not least in overcoming various legal challenges to the admissibility of evidence obtained in foreign jurisdictions.
That the report focuses on evidence of offences committed exclusively by dual British nationals – thereby paving the way for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction – is not a coincidence. Rather, it was a practical consideration designed to alleviate at least one of the potential barriers to effective investigations and prosecutions: access to the accused. It is not in fact known whether those identified in the report reside in the UK or intend to return. Were arrest warrants to follow for suspects currently residing in Israel, some would have serious doubts that any such request would be granted, posing a further challenge to speedy justice.
All of these challenges lie ahead, and the organisation responsible for navigating them initially is the Metropolitan Police’s War Crimes Team who received the report. The War Crimes Team operates as part of the Counter Terrorism Command division (‘SO15’) and has the national mandate for investigating serious international crimes. As a dedicated team of investigators charged with investigating atrocity crimes, it is hoped that they have all of the necessary tools and expertise at their disposal to conduct their own investigations and assess whether the evidence is such that prosecutions should follow.
Ultimately, it will be for the Counter Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service to advise on potential offences disclosed by the evidence and to decide whether there is a ‘reasonable prospect of conviction’. We are some way off considering the alternatives in the event of a negative response, which would include judicial review and/or the bringing of private prosecutions.
It is accepted by all involved that these things take some time. Preliminary meetings with the War Crimes Team in advance of the submission of the report were positive, with every indication being that the evidence submitted will be properly examined with a view to what comes next. Whatever does come next, it must be evidence-led and free from political interference.
The Israel-Palestine situation is polarising for some. What ought not be controversial is that atrocity crimes are some of the gravest crimes in international law, and credible evidence that Brits have committed war crimes and CAH should be of concern to everyone.
Any views expressed here are the author’s alone and not on behalf of Chambers or any other organisation.
Sean Summerfield practises in domestic and international criminal law and human rights from Doughty Street Chambers. He is appointed to the list of Approved Assistants to Counsel at the International Criminal Court and holds a doctorate in International Criminal Law. He is elected to the Bar Council.
In April 2025, a team of lawyers gathered outside New Scotland Yard to present the Metropolitan Police with evidence alleging that 10 dual British-Israeli nationals have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity (CAH) while fighting for Israel in Gaza. The report that we submitted runs to 240-pages, plus many more in annex, and was the product of collaboration between the Public Interest Law Centre, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and a team of dedicated researchers based in The Hague.
While suspects cannot be named so as not to jeopardise ongoing investigations or prejudice future prosecutions, the report alleges evidence of wilful killing, inhuman treatment, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; and wilfully attacking civilians – all grave crimes under international law. Further, the report calls on the Met Police to investigate, with a view – if the evidence supports it – to arrest warrants and domestic prosecutions.
In the press conference and media appearances that followed, journalists were keen to understand the UK’s obligations under international law, the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the challenges that any future investigations may face and next steps – most prominently, whether we might actually see British suspects on trial for war crimes and CAH at the Old Bailey.
It is long established that the UK has jurisdiction over grave crimes committed abroad – both universally and extraterritorially – and is under a legally binding obligation to exercise that jurisdiction where the evidence suggests that it should.
The principle of complementarity in international law ensures that it is national legal systems that have primary responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of grave crimes, and it is only when states are unwilling or unable to prosecute that the ICC’s jurisdiction is activated.
Universal jurisdiction for grave crimes flows principally from the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which were codified into UK legislation in 1957. Later, the UK’s jurisdictional regime for serious international crimes was bolstered by the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (ICCA 2001), which gives effect to the Rome Statute, establishing the ICC.
The ICCA 2001 ensures that it ‘is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime’, and crimes committed abroad can be prosecuted if the suspect is a UK national, resident, or subject to UK service jurisdiction (‘extraterritorial jurisdiction’).
States have frequently engaged the international courts as a mechanism for seeking accountability in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). As between states, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued various advisory opinions on inter alia the consequences of Israel’s separation wall, the continued occupation, limiting access to humanitarian aid, and alleged violations of the Genocide Convention.
On the question of individual responsibility, in 2019 the Prosecutor of the ICC announced an investigation into war crimes allegedly committed in the OPT; in 2021 the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I decided that the court’s territorial jurisdiction extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; in May 2024, a Panel of Experts, convened by the Prosecutor of the ICC, delivered their report into the ‘Situation in the State of Palestine’, and in November 2024, ICC arrest warrants were issued for Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant and Mohammed Deif, on charges of war crimes and CAH.
It may well come to pass that we see the leadership most responsible for atrocity crimes in the OPT in the dock in The Hague (see James Onalaja’s excellent two part series for Counsel magazine on arrest warrants in the Israel-Palestine situation). Such a possibility does not in any way preclude domestic investigations into foot soldiers and the officers that command them on the ground, followed by prosecutions in national courts.
It is perhaps not surprising that an eyebrow raised in cynicism was the most common response to the suggestion that we might see accountability in domestic courts for war crimes and CAH committed in Gaza. The history of war crimes prosecutions in UK courts is sparse, and justice for international crimes notoriously slow.
Investigations into grave crimes are also frequently beset by challenges in collecting evidence in ongoing conflict zones, accessing suspects, identifying and securing witnesses, and obtaining the cooperation of states with the resources to assist but who might otherwise be hostile to proceedings. Recent attempts at domestic prosecutions for offences committed abroad also forewarn issues pre-trial, not least in overcoming various legal challenges to the admissibility of evidence obtained in foreign jurisdictions.
That the report focuses on evidence of offences committed exclusively by dual British nationals – thereby paving the way for the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction – is not a coincidence. Rather, it was a practical consideration designed to alleviate at least one of the potential barriers to effective investigations and prosecutions: access to the accused. It is not in fact known whether those identified in the report reside in the UK or intend to return. Were arrest warrants to follow for suspects currently residing in Israel, some would have serious doubts that any such request would be granted, posing a further challenge to speedy justice.
All of these challenges lie ahead, and the organisation responsible for navigating them initially is the Metropolitan Police’s War Crimes Team who received the report. The War Crimes Team operates as part of the Counter Terrorism Command division (‘SO15’) and has the national mandate for investigating serious international crimes. As a dedicated team of investigators charged with investigating atrocity crimes, it is hoped that they have all of the necessary tools and expertise at their disposal to conduct their own investigations and assess whether the evidence is such that prosecutions should follow.
Ultimately, it will be for the Counter Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service to advise on potential offences disclosed by the evidence and to decide whether there is a ‘reasonable prospect of conviction’. We are some way off considering the alternatives in the event of a negative response, which would include judicial review and/or the bringing of private prosecutions.
It is accepted by all involved that these things take some time. Preliminary meetings with the War Crimes Team in advance of the submission of the report were positive, with every indication being that the evidence submitted will be properly examined with a view to what comes next. Whatever does come next, it must be evidence-led and free from political interference.
The Israel-Palestine situation is polarising for some. What ought not be controversial is that atrocity crimes are some of the gravest crimes in international law, and credible evidence that Brits have committed war crimes and CAH should be of concern to everyone.
Any views expressed here are the author’s alone and not on behalf of Chambers or any other organisation.
Chair of the Bar sets out a busy calendar for the rest of the year
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Examined by Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Time is precious for barristers. Every moment spent chasing paperwork, organising diaries, or managing admin is time taken away from what matters most: preparation, advocacy and your clients. That’s where Eden Assistants step in
AlphaBiolabs has announced its latest Giving Back donation to RAY Ceredigion, a grassroots West Wales charity that provides play, learning and community opportunities for families across Ceredigion County
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
Come in with your eyes open, but don’t let fear cloud the prospect. A view from practice by John Dove
Anon Academic explains why he’s leaving the world of English literature for the Bar – after all, the two are not as far apart as they may first seem...
Review by Stephen Cragg KC
