The appointment of Lord Richard Hermer as Attorney General has ignited a firestorm of controversy, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest stemming from his past legal work. The most recent revelation centers on his representation of an Eritrean man claiming to be an unaccompanied child migrant, challenging the Home Office’s age assessment guidance. Although his legal challenge was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court, this case highlights his previous involvement in opposing government policies related to immigration, a critical area now falling under his purview as Attorney General. This latest development adds another layer to the already mounting scrutiny surrounding Lord Hermer’s appointment.
The controversy surrounding Lord Hermer’s appointment is further compounded by his recent representation of Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Fein leader. He received £30,000 for his services to Adams, a figure that has drawn criticism given the sensitive political landscape surrounding Northern Ireland and the legacy of the Troubles. Furthermore, the government’s efforts to repeal the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill, which prevents former IRA suspects from claiming compensation, adds another dimension to the potential conflict of interest. Lord Hermer’s involvement with Adams raises questions about his ability to offer impartial legal advice on matters related to Northern Ireland, particularly given his past advocacy for individuals connected to the conflict.
Downing Street has responded to the growing concerns by suggesting that Lord Hermer would be barred from advising on cases where a conflict of interest arises. This assurance, however, hasn’t entirely quelled the unease, particularly given the expansive nature of the Attorney General’s role. The “established system” mentioned by a No 10 spokesperson to prevent conflicts of interest will be under intense scrutiny, as the public and political opponents alike will be watching closely to ensure its effectiveness in preventing Lord Hermer from influencing decisions related to his former clients. The complexity and sensitivity of the issues involved raise serious doubts about the practicality and efficacy of such a system in completely insulating the Attorney General’s office from potential bias.
Adding to the controversy is Lord Hermer’s unique position as the first Attorney General since 1922 to have never served in the House of Commons. This lack of parliamentary experience raises questions about his understanding of the political intricacies and sensitivities surrounding his new role. While his supporters might argue that this background provides him with a degree of separation from partisan politics, critics contend that it also signifies a disconnect from the very processes and debates that shape the laws he is now tasked with upholding. The absence of a direct mandate from the electorate also raises questions about his accountability and responsiveness to public concerns.
The assertion made upon his appointment that Lord Hermer “would not be distracted by politics” now appears somewhat ironic in light of the escalating controversies. His past legal work, particularly his representation of figures like Gerry Adams and his challenges to government immigration policies, has become inextricably intertwined with his current role. The pressure on him to demonstrate impartiality and avoid any appearance of favoritism will be immense. The government’s efforts to downplay the concerns and emphasize the existing mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest have done little to allay the growing public and political anxiety surrounding his appointment.
The unfolding controversy surrounding Lord Hermer’s appointment highlights the inherent tensions between a lawyer’s duty to their clients and the impartiality expected of the Attorney General, the government’s chief legal advisor. The complexities of his past cases, coupled with the sensitive political context of Northern Ireland and immigration policy, create a challenging environment for him to navigate. The government’s assurances about managing potential conflicts of interest are facing increasing skepticism, and the pressure on Lord Hermer to demonstrate unwavering impartiality will only intensify in the days ahead. The situation underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in such high-profile appointments and the need for robust mechanisms to prevent even the perception of bias in the administration of justice.
