Wow, brave man and he managed to lay a hand on him…not so Teflon now Tony?

Were those bodyguards within their rights to prevent a citizen’s arrest? Is it lawful to obstruct such a thing?

The ICC is starting to looked increasingly discredited with its continuing failure to indict and arrest Blair on the charge of the war crime of aggression.

The Economist for 13 February has a review of a new book: The Rule of Law (Penguin Books) by Lord Bingham, who has held all three of Britain’s great judicial offices: Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord. The review includes this passage:

“However, it is when he gets to his final point, the requirement that states should regard their obligations under international law as no less forceful than those under national laws, that he really makes his mark. In a cool, but deadly dissection of the assault on the rule of law that was launched by the so-called ‘war on terror’, Lord Bingham deals first with the question of whether the allied invasion of Iraq was legal. He has no doubt that it was not. He argues persuasively that neither Security Council resolutions 678 nor 1441 could bear the weight that the British government was forced to place on them when confronted by the failure to obtain a further resolution explicitly authorising the use of force. One cannot help feeling that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith might have had a hotter time under examination by Lord Bingham than by the Chilcot panel.”
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15495776

A citizens arrest needs to be for an actual crime, not “crimes against peace and the crime of aggression”. No crime was committed here (check the statute books – Tony Blair has broken no British law). So what the bodyguards did was intervene and stop a possible attempted assault/false imprisonment.

More to the point, does anyone really believe it is sensible to let citizens arrest, a device to stop fleeing criminals or fugitives, be applied to political figures over what is, regardless of your views, a political issue (it can still be a crime)? That way lies the subversion of democracy to the activist who can misuse legal powers as they wish. After all, if this is valid, so is arresting Ed Milliband over defrauding taxpayers through climate change propoganda. It is all a point of view, and believing something does not give you the right to ignore the rules of democracy and law.

Is there such a crime as ‘resisting a citizen’s arrest’ or can you just tell the arresting citizen to fuck off?

Try Professor Philippe Sands QC on Lord Goldsmith’s final change of mind that the invasion of Iraq would be lawful after all:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/lord-goldsmith-chilcot-iraq-inquiry

The odd thing is that three cabinet ministers at the time of the invasion gave very different reasons at the Chilcot inquiry for believing that the war was the correct course of action:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/08/david-miliband-iraq-war-inquiry

In case you missed it, try also this article in The Times by Sir Kenneth Macdonald QC, previously Director of Public Prosecutions 2003-2008 and currently visiting prof at the LSE:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6955241.ece

“The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible.”

In his law practice, Sir Kenneth Macdonald QC works out of Matrix Chambers, as does Cherie (Booth) Blair QC and Professor Philippe Sands QC, author of: Lawless World – Making and Breaking Global Rules (Penguin, 2006)

Bob,

Regardless of your citations, which crime could Mr Blair have been arrested for having committed?

“Regardless of your citations, which crime could Mr Blair have been arrested for having committed?”

I gather that the consensus among lawyers versed in international law is that Blair could be indicted for the crime of aggression.

Some here and elsewhere tend to dismiss the significance of international law but Britain encourages inward investment (very successfully) and is one of the leading sources of outward investment so British interests are much at stake if British governments make a practice of disregarding international law whenever it proves inconvenient. Lord Binghmam was making the point that the rule of law is seamless.

More to the point, does anyone really believe it is sensible to let citizens arrest, a device to stop fleeing criminals or fugitives, be applied to political figures over what is, regardless of your views, a political issue (it can still be a crime)?

Yes it is sensible to allow citizen’s arrests of criminals.

A citizens arrest needs to be for an actual crime, not “crimes against peace and the crime of aggression”. No crime was committed here (check the statute books – Tony Blair has broken no British law).

Whilst it’s true the CPS cannot prosecute for aggression (despite it being the ‘supreme’ crime) what you (and just about everyone else) have overlooked is the fact no war ever took place nor did the UN resolution exist for a police action.

As he has no protection from any ‘people die during war’ norms, he’s either guilty of incitement to murder and being an accessory thereof or he’s guilty of many of the myriad terrorism laws.

It’s also worth remembering that according to Bugliosi, Bush is guilty of the murder of US troops, can the parallel follow?

I gather that the consensus among lawyers versed in international law is that Blair could be indicted for the crime of aggression.

Where does that myth come from? It’s obviously not true: if you look actually read the citations above, it’s very much not what they are saying.

It doesn’t seem to benefit any obvious corporate interest, political party or national strategy, so who is the group pushing it?

Look, if you believe Tony Blair is guilty of something, take it to the appropriate court. I don’t think you’ll get very far personally, but couldn’t really care if you did. So long as it is done legally, and not by attention-seeking journalist-campaigners abusing a legal right accorded to us as subjects in this country (how we make a citizens’ arrest without being citizens is an interesting question).

If abuse of citizens arrest to make a polemical point becomes normal, how do you think government (regardless of which party) would react? By making one of our rights more difficult to exercise or by ignoring it? Hence there is real risk in idiots trying to ‘play’ the system to their own political ends, in that if it is used this way, government will simply take measures to protect ‘celebrities’ or ‘public figures’ from harrasment, and on past experience these measures will impact civil liberties.

Thus you can think Tony Blair has committed war crimes. As I say, I don’t care, although if there is a case it should be heard. But as this is not a crime in British jurisdiction, unless there is a hitherto unheard of right of international citizens’ arrest, may I suggest that such publicity stunts are stupid in light of the fairly obvious possible consequences.

how we make a citizens’ arrest without being citizens is an interesting question

it isn’t actually a “citizen’s” arrest, that’s just the most commonly used phrase for it.

If abuse of citizens arrest to make a polemical point becomes normal,

It won’t, but yes you make a good point, politicians are willing to unjustly change laws. However, if the power exists but we mustn’t use it, what’s the point in having it?

Thus you can think Tony Blair has committed war crimes. As I say, I don’t care, although if there is a case it should be heard. But as this is not a crime in British jurisdiction,

What isn’t a crime?

If you think that breach of international treaties and conventions etc has no legal consequence in English law, think again: see for example the Geneva Conventions Act.

Besides, the ‘citizen’ can be charged with committing an unlawful arrest if the authorities think it’s appropriate.

“If you think that breach of international treaties and conventions etc has no legal consequence in English law, think again: see for example the Geneva Conventions Act.”

And as Blair himself said in a keynote speech in Chicago in April 1999:

“If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html

ukliberty,

I did not say do not use the power of detaining a criminal. I said do not use it for publicity purposes.

A right is a privilege (historically they mean much the same thing). It is stupid to abuse this for short-term gain, when you know the arrest will not stick. It is tokenism, an attempt to be seen to be doing something. Tony Blair would not be charged after arrest, even if he had consented to go along. You know that, I know that and Mr Cronin knows that. So to endanger our civil liberties further for the sake of a pointless gesture is plain stupid.

I did not say do not use the power of detaining a criminal. I said do not use it for publicity purposes.

In your opinion David Cronin used it for publicity purposes. In David Cronin’s apparent opinion he used it in an attempt to arrest a suspected criminal (and I imagine publicity was also wanted).

A right is a privilege

What’s this got to do with the topic? (and I disagree that they are synonymous).

Tony Blair would not be charged after arrest, even if he had consented to go along.

Undoubtedly true.

So to endanger our civil liberties further for the sake of a pointless gesture is plain stupid.

I think that only three people have tried it so far. I wouldn’t worry too much.

“In your opinion David Cronin used it for publicity purposes. In David Cronin’s apparent opinion he used it in an attempt to arrest a suspected criminal (and I imagine publicity was also wanted).”

Interpretations vary, but I suspect Mr Cronin knew that if Mr Blair accompanied him to the police station, no charges would be forthcoming because there was no crime that the police could charge Mr Blair with having committed.

“What’s this got to do with the topic? (and I disagree that they are synonymous).”

Because the right to arrest criminals is a right, but as with most rights the way government operates is to view it as a privilege and take it away if they don’t like it. So the fact people keep misusing it makes this more and more likely.

There is also the minor matter of Mr Blair’s civil rights, which mean he should not be assaulted or wrongly arrested as he has not committed a crime (in this jurisdiction). But somehow I doubt many supporters of the Blair is a war criminal meme will allow this argument to stand.

Interpretations vary, but I suspect Mr Cronin knew that if Mr Blair accompanied him to the police station, no charges would be forthcoming because there was no crime that the police could charge Mr Blair with having committed.

If that is the case, Cronin must have known he risked being charged with making an unlawful arrest.

Because the right to arrest criminals is a right,

No, it’s a power. This doesn’t affect your point, but you’re using the wrong legal terms.

There is also the minor matter of Mr Blair’s civil rights, which mean he should not be assaulted or wrongly arrested as he has not committed a crime (in this jurisdiction). But somehow I doubt many supporters of the Blair is a war criminal meme will allow this argument to stand.

Then Blair might like to persuade the authorities to charge Cronin with making an unlawful arrest; alternatively he could initiate a private prosecution for the same.

Oh, misconduct in public office might be a good one:

The elements of misconduct in public office are:

a) A public officer acting as such.

b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.

c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.

d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.

The ICC is starting to looked increasingly discredited with its continuing failure to indict and arrest Blair on the charge of the war crime of aggression.

It can’t because the crime has yet to be defined.

I’m no lawyer so try this:

“Just before the war began – without security council authorisation – the legal argument on which the government acted caused the deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office to resign. Elizabeth Wilmshurst’s letter of resignation did not mince words: ‘I cannot in conscience go along with advice … which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression.’”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/08/post881

Bob B,

The UN on aggression (and see this too):

“Aggression has been included as a crime within the [International Criminal Court's] jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction.”

The Rome Statute:

“The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. ”

See also this for more detail about the history of disagreement and the implications of definition and the first comment.

“So to endanger our civil liberties further for the sake of a pointless gesture is plain stupid.”

Wonderful. So redolent of the bit in “Catch 22″ when Yossarian is warned that he is jeopardising Americans’ rights to liberty and freedom of choice, by exercising them.

@23: UKLiberty – Many thanks for those links which obviously repaired a gap in my knowledge and – by many appearances – that of others too. It must be long since the time that ICC statutes sorted out a legal definition of “aggression” but I doubt there will be much international pressure to do that.

Bob B, you’re more than welcome and I agree with you.

““You are guilty of war crimes,” I shouted after him, adrenaline giving me the kind of high I haven’t experienced in years.”

I’m sorry to hear that.

I’m surprised nobody’s pointed out that David Cronin has done himself (and the charity of his choice) a bit of a favour financially as well – he scoops 25% of the Arrest Blair pot – worth something around £2,750!

See http://www.arrestblair.org for details.

Hopefully, Blair will be continually be subject to arrest attempts by all sorts of people just trying to scrape together the cash to pay off their winter quarter gas bill.

Shame they didn’t succeed… surprised he let people so close to him without some sort of intervention.