Calling an Act “Unlawful” Doesn’t Make It So

When Sir Keir Starmer brands the Legacy Act “unlawful”, he blurs a hard constitutional fact. Legally precise? No. Politically understandable? Maybe. Honest and transparent? No.

With the upcoming vote next week on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, Stuart Anderson MP put a straight question to the Prime Minister:

“With the upcoming vote on the northern island troubles bill, nine of the most respected and experienced generals of a generation have publicly attacked the government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces. They have said it will erode trust in the justice system, and it is a threat to national security. As a veteran who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles, does the Prime Minister think they’re all wrong, and when is he actually going to start standing up for our veterans?”

That’s clear, pointed and rooted in lived experience.

Anderson cites specific concerns from senior military figures, including erosion of trust in the justice system and a claimed threat to national security.

Then he brings it home with the obvious question: is the Prime Minister really saying that all of them are wrong?

Sir Keir Starmer replied:

“When former service chiefs raise an issue, we will, of course, engage with them. Of course, I respect their service and their views, and will do so we are having to get rid of unlawful legislation and putting in place a system with clear rights and protections for veterans and we will continue to try to get that balance right.”

On the surface, it sounds reasonable: respect is paid, “engagement” is promised, and there’s a nod to “rights and protections for veterans”.

But look more closely at the crucial phrase:

“We are having to get rid of unlawful legislation…”

That is doing a lot of political heavy lifting — and most people listening will take it at face value.

The problem is that, in constitutional terms, it’s simply not true in the way it will be heard. Or, to put it another way, it is utter nonsense.

An Act of Parliament is not “unlawful” in the sense that a ministerial decision, a policy, or a regulation might be. Parliament makes the law.

What has actually happened is that courts in Northern Ireland have held that specific provisions of the Legacy Act are incompatible with human rights obligations and with the exact protections that apply in Northern Ireland. Parts of it cannot lawfully be operated there without breaching those obligations.

That is a serious issue — but it is not the same thing as a foreign court striking down a rogue statute, nor is it proof that “the Tories passed unlawful laws and Labour are cleaning up the mess”.

It is Parliament running up against limits it has set itself through earlier legislation and international commitments.

Starmer — a lawyer — knows that distinction perfectly well.

So how fair is his line?

• Legally precise? No.
  It conflates “Act subject to declarations of incompatibility and disapplication in NI” with “unlawful legislation”. That’s sloppy at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

• Politically understandable? Maybe.
  As a soundbite, it’s convenient. It lets Labour disown a controversial Act, wrap itself in the language of victims’ rights, and pose as the responsible adults tidying up after the last lot.

• Honest and transparent? No.
  It blurs what the courts have actually said, and it ducks Anderson’s fundamental challenge: that highly respected generals believe the government’s current approach to lawfare and legacy issues will damage trust and national security. Starmer’s answer avoids grappling with that charge altogether.

Instead of levelling with the public — admitting that the legal position is complex, that the Legacy Act is colliding with human rights jurisprudence, and that there is a tension between finality for veterans and justice for victims — the Prime Minister reaches for a phrase that sounds decisive but obscures more than it reveals.

If you care about veterans, about victims, and about the integrity of the justice system, you should care about that.

Because once you start treating Acts of Parliament as “unlawful” in casual political language, you are not just attacking your opponents’ record — you are muddying the public’s understanding of how law actually works in this country.

And in the middle of that confusion are the same people everyone claims to be standing up for: the men and women who served, and the families of those who never came home.

They deserve better than clever phrasing and constitutional sleight of hand.