Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers. He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.
Even before the current Prime Ministers Downing street announcement. The resignations from the ministry of defence – over under-funding of the armed forces – had created a further possible government U turn, at once domestic and international – concerning Northern Ireland (‘NI’) legacy policy.
When Al Carns, the armed forces minister built like action man, followed the then Secretary of State, John Healey out of the ministerial door, on 11 June 2026, he widened the critique of the already beleaguered Prime Minister.
‘The same instinct, that serious problems can be managed rather than faced, runs through the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill’, Carns added in his resignation letter: ‘I have worked to fix the Bill from the inside, but it remains unfit for purpose. It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect.’
‘These two failures are the same failure’, wrote the 2024 MP with closet leadership ambitions: ‘We ask soldiers to fight for this country. In return, we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it’s done. We are failing on both.’ It could not have been more clear.
The Johnson government had succeeded eventually in legislating to protect veterans from vexatious claims, albeit with two statutes: the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021; and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
In what was an important act of statehood in March 2020, the conservatives declined to consult the Irish government over NI. Brexit had been difficult to achieve. However, the government went on to legislate separately for the 300,000 ‘operation banner’ veterans in Northern Ireland, from 1969 to 2007. Labour peers then promised to repeal the Legacy Act 2023 (as it was called), when – as became increasingly likely – the party was returned to government. Their loyalty to the Irish government was remarkable.
After the general election, the diminished official opposition spotted quickly that Sir Keir Starmer had attempted to ‘reset’ relations with Dublin in July and September 2024 (with future annual summits), in a wider context of resetting relations with the European Union.
In December 2023, the Irish government had taken an inter-state case against the United Kingdom, at Strasbourg. The application remains unpublished. And the labour government humiliatingly has not sought to defend itself. It lets its so-called partner engage in international gesture politics, holding a gun to its own head.
There followed, on 19 September 2025, after over a year of labour, a so-called joint framework on legacy between London and Dublin, and, on the same day, a separate ministry of defence set of six veterans’ protections. The Irish government had not agreed the latter. So, which was it: joint rule of NI with Dublin; or a UK responsibility alone?
In October 2025, Hilary Benn, the NI secretary, finally introduced his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, creating two classes of veterans: those under the 2021 act and those – who were about to be sacrificed – under the Legacy Act 2023. This is the bill Al Carns, a reserve royal marine officer, has torn up with his bare hands! And it is the bill that has done more than anything to mobilise veterans.
The official opposition had also spotted the hypocrisy of labour MPs like Benn, a cabinet minister in 2005-06, when Tony Blair and Peter Hain tried unsuccessfully to enact the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill – in order to draw a Labour line then under the troubles.
Recent legislative history was to be influenced by an important NI legacy case, called simply Dillon. This turned on the UK/EU withdrawal agreement of October 2019, and in particular article 2 (rights of individuals) of the NI protocol (later, the Windsor framework).
In February 2024, Mr Justice Colton tore into the Legacy Act 2023 (including sections not in force). He made a series of declarations of incompatibility, under the Human Rights Act 1998. And he disapplied, under EU law, the same sections. Rishi Sunak’s government appealed both disposals. But Colton J was upheld in the court of appeal in September 2024.
Before this, the recently appointed labour attorney general, Lord [Richard] Hermer KC, who had helped Keir Starmer hound Iraqi war veterans in 2004-07 (ConservativeHome, 11 February 2026), withdrew the human rights appeal and proceeded with the EU one. This did not turn out to be clever lawyering, especially for his own government.
The supreme court decided Dillon on 7 May 2026. Denied a human rights appeal, it did something remarkable. It permitted the NI veterans movement to intervene, and listened to Lord Wolfson KC, the shadow attorney general.
The supreme court opined that the human rights court had not closed down the amnesty option; it was still open to considering such an outcome. This was the first such judicial utterance, capable of resolving NI legacy on a realistic and humane basis.
The supreme court overruled the NI courts in Dillon, with considerable ease. The legacy practitioners had relied upon three paragraphs in the Belfast agreement, which were obviously political and not legal.
The justices in the supreme court – applying EU law – said these three paragraphs had no ‘direct effect’ (that is, were not available to the applicants), because they did not meet the EU legal test of ‘a clear and precise obligation’. Never had a senior court case been so easy to lose, by NI applicants who came to London with tails held high!
The interveners in Dillon – supporting the applicants against the secretary of state – included: the police ombudsman; the department of justice; the human rights commission; the equality commission; and Amnesty International (UK). These are all public bodies (save the latter), which deserve to be held to account.
Hilary Benn – after Lord Hermer’s not-so-clever ploy – has tried and failed twice to put a so-called remedial order (a form of delegated legislation) through parliament. He relies upon Colton J’s judgment. But this NI judge has (most probably) given up judicial swashbuckling, after the supreme court faulted the applicants on no direct effect.
As for the Benn bill, it is now stuck in the house of commons. True, there is a carry-over motion for this session of parliament, but how will Hilary Benn deal with Al Carns on the backbenches? The younger labour veterans who have supported the government hitherto, are less likely to rally to Sir Keir’s bugle if he tried to do anything in the weeks has left, and we have no idea if Andy Burnham would blow one, or certainty whether Hilary Benn will stay in post.
However, the Secretary of State had a threefold criticism of the conservatives’ Legacy Act 2023, when he started out on his failed repeal and replace mission two years ago.
First, he was opposed to terrorists obtaining immunity by imparting information to families. But that is exactly what he tried to do in 2005-06, by an even more transparent legislative route.
Second, the five parties in the NI assembly were opposed to the 2023 act. Surprisingly, they are opposed to his bill. These were the parties who did not agree the Stormont House agreement in 2014. They were also the parties who failed to legislate in Belfast. And they are the same parties which opposed a draft Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) bill at Westminster in 2018.
Third, he was concerned for the victims and families. But there has been no outpouring of emotion in support of his efforts.
One, the 90 per cent of terrorist killings never attracted human rights. Two, after Dalton, the only human rights are available for state killings after 2 October 1988 (including Patrick Finucane allegedly). And three, Secretary Benn has been frankly toying with the feelings of those, unable to accept the 1998 Belfast agreement – ‘The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence.’ – which secured a 71 per cent yes vote in the NI referendum.
Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers. He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.
Even before the current Prime Ministers Downing street announcement. The resignations from the ministry of defence – over under-funding of the armed forces – had created a further possible government U turn, at once domestic and international – concerning Northern Ireland (‘NI’) legacy policy.
When Al Carns, the armed forces minister built like action man, followed the then Secretary of State, John Healey out of the ministerial door, on 11 June 2026, he widened the critique of the already beleaguered Prime Minister.
‘The same instinct, that serious problems can be managed rather than faced, runs through the Northern Ireland Legacy Bill’, Carns added in his resignation letter: ‘I have worked to fix the Bill from the inside, but it remains unfit for purpose. It risks failing the very veterans it claims to protect.’
‘These two failures are the same failure’, wrote the 2024 MP with closet leadership ambitions: ‘We ask soldiers to fight for this country. In return, we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it’s done. We are failing on both.’ It could not have been more clear.
The Johnson government had succeeded eventually in legislating to protect veterans from vexatious claims, albeit with two statutes: the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021; and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
In what was an important act of statehood in March 2020, the conservatives declined to consult the Irish government over NI. Brexit had been difficult to achieve. However, the government went on to legislate separately for the 300,000 ‘operation banner’ veterans in Northern Ireland, from 1969 to 2007. Labour peers then promised to repeal the Legacy Act 2023 (as it was called), when – as became increasingly likely – the party was returned to government. Their loyalty to the Irish government was remarkable.
After the general election, the diminished official opposition spotted quickly that Sir Keir Starmer had attempted to ‘reset’ relations with Dublin in July and September 2024 (with future annual summits), in a wider context of resetting relations with the European Union.
In December 2023, the Irish government had taken an inter-state case against the United Kingdom, at Strasbourg. The application remains unpublished. And the labour government humiliatingly has not sought to defend itself. It lets its so-called partner engage in international gesture politics, holding a gun to its own head.
There followed, on 19 September 2025, after over a year of labour, a so-called joint framework on legacy between London and Dublin, and, on the same day, a separate ministry of defence set of six veterans’ protections. The Irish government had not agreed the latter. So, which was it: joint rule of NI with Dublin; or a UK responsibility alone?
In October 2025, Hilary Benn, the NI secretary, finally introduced his Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, creating two classes of veterans: those under the 2021 act and those – who were about to be sacrificed – under the Legacy Act 2023. This is the bill Al Carns, a reserve royal marine officer, has torn up with his bare hands! And it is the bill that has done more than anything to mobilise veterans.
The official opposition had also spotted the hypocrisy of labour MPs like Benn, a cabinet minister in 2005-06, when Tony Blair and Peter Hain tried unsuccessfully to enact the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill – in order to draw a Labour line then under the troubles.
Recent legislative history was to be influenced by an important NI legacy case, called simply Dillon. This turned on the UK/EU withdrawal agreement of October 2019, and in particular article 2 (rights of individuals) of the NI protocol (later, the Windsor framework).
In February 2024, Mr Justice Colton tore into the Legacy Act 2023 (including sections not in force). He made a series of declarations of incompatibility, under the Human Rights Act 1998. And he disapplied, under EU law, the same sections. Rishi Sunak’s government appealed both disposals. But Colton J was upheld in the court of appeal in September 2024.
Before this, the recently appointed labour attorney general, Lord [Richard] Hermer KC, who had helped Keir Starmer hound Iraqi war veterans in 2004-07 (ConservativeHome, 11 February 2026), withdrew the human rights appeal and proceeded with the EU one. This did not turn out to be clever lawyering, especially for his own government.
The supreme court decided Dillon on 7 May 2026. Denied a human rights appeal, it did something remarkable. It permitted the NI veterans movement to intervene, and listened to Lord Wolfson KC, the shadow attorney general.
The supreme court opined that the human rights court had not closed down the amnesty option; it was still open to considering such an outcome. This was the first such judicial utterance, capable of resolving NI legacy on a realistic and humane basis.
The supreme court overruled the NI courts in Dillon, with considerable ease. The legacy practitioners had relied upon three paragraphs in the Belfast agreement, which were obviously political and not legal.
The justices in the supreme court – applying EU law – said these three paragraphs had no ‘direct effect’ (that is, were not available to the applicants), because they did not meet the EU legal test of ‘a clear and precise obligation’. Never had a senior court case been so easy to lose, by NI applicants who came to London with tails held high!
The interveners in Dillon – supporting the applicants against the secretary of state – included: the police ombudsman; the department of justice; the human rights commission; the equality commission; and Amnesty International (UK). These are all public bodies (save the latter), which deserve to be held to account.
Hilary Benn – after Lord Hermer’s not-so-clever ploy – has tried and failed twice to put a so-called remedial order (a form of delegated legislation) through parliament. He relies upon Colton J’s judgment. But this NI judge has (most probably) given up judicial swashbuckling, after the supreme court faulted the applicants on no direct effect.
As for the Benn bill, it is now stuck in the house of commons. True, there is a carry-over motion for this session of parliament, but how will Hilary Benn deal with Al Carns on the backbenches? The younger labour veterans who have supported the government hitherto, are less likely to rally to Sir Keir’s bugle if he tried to do anything in the weeks has left, and we have no idea if Andy Burnham would blow one, or certainty whether Hilary Benn will stay in post.
However, the Secretary of State had a threefold criticism of the conservatives’ Legacy Act 2023, when he started out on his failed repeal and replace mission two years ago.
First, he was opposed to terrorists obtaining immunity by imparting information to families. But that is exactly what he tried to do in 2005-06, by an even more transparent legislative route.
Second, the five parties in the NI assembly were opposed to the 2023 act. Surprisingly, they are opposed to his bill. These were the parties who did not agree the Stormont House agreement in 2014. They were also the parties who failed to legislate in Belfast. And they are the same parties which opposed a draft Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) bill at Westminster in 2018.
Third, he was concerned for the victims and families. But there has been no outpouring of emotion in support of his efforts.
One, the 90 per cent of terrorist killings never attracted human rights. Two, after Dalton, the only human rights are available for state killings after 2 October 1988 (including Patrick Finucane allegedly). And three, Secretary Benn has been frankly toying with the feelings of those, unable to accept the 1998 Belfast agreement – ‘The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence.’ – which secured a 71 per cent yes vote in the NI referendum.