UK government rebuffs FOI request over Syria drone killings

Two UK government departments have declined to publish legal advice given to the Prime Minister before he gave the go-ahead for drone strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria.

A freedom of information (FOI) request made by the Press Association was rejected by the Cabinet Office and the Attorney General’s Office on the basis the information had to be kept secret.

David Cameron said the killing of two British ISIS militants two months ago was “entirely lawful” according to international law and that the Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC was consulted before the attack was authorised.

However, critics of the policy argue drone strikes violate international law as they are essentially extrajudicial killings.

The militants killed were reported to be Ruhul Amin, 26, from Aberdeen and Reyaad Khan, from Cardiff.

Both offices confirmed they held information “falling within the scope of your request.”

However, neither would provide the information, availing themselves of the six exemptions offered under the Freedom of Information of Act 2000.

These are: “Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters; defence; international relations; information relating to the provision of advice by any of the law officers or any request for the provision of such advice; protection of personal data; and legal professional privilege.”

The Press Association said the exemptions covering personal data and security are “absolute” while the remainder are “qualified” – meaning government officials need to decide whether it is in the public interest to disclose the information.

In their replies, they said:“ recognise that there is a public interest in demonstrating to the public that the government sought and received appropriate professional legal advice, and that this military action took place in accordance with the rule of law.”

But, the statements added: “The public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege, and in particular in maintaining the confidentiality of legal advice provided by the law officers, is of particular importance in this case.”

“There is a strong public interest in the prime minister, secretary of state for defence and government more broadly being able to seek legal advice in confidence.

“The particular importance of maintaining the confidentiality of advice given by the law officers is reflected in the convention, observed by successive governments, that their advice should not be disclosed outside government.”

Kat Craig, legal director at Reprieve, said the Attorney General’s failure to discuss the legal advice was “alarming”, adding: “All we currently know is that the prime minister thinks he can authorize the killing of anyone, anywhere, without any parliamentary or judicial oversight.

“The UK appears to be going down the US route of a counterproductive, secret drone war which does more harm than good.”

She added: “When even US generals are warning that the drone program causes more problems than it solves, it beggars belief that the British government is adopting the model in full.

“We need a real debate, and for that we need the government to come clean about this policy.”