1-13 of 13 results for subject:"Shiner, Phil"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.346 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Shiner, Phil"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Shiner, Phil" OR subject_t:"Phil Shiner" OR subject_ses:435074
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
There are growing rumours that the Government plan to bring back their ill-fated Northern Ireland Troubles Bill to the Commons next week. If that is true, it will give us the perfect opportunity to debate the Prime Minister’s links with Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was convicted of fraud and struck off for making multiple false allegations against British soldiers. The Northern Ireland Secretary has told the House repeatedly that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Do MOD Ministers now agree that that is not just naive but simply untrue, especially after the case of Phil Shiner —a man universally hated across the British Army?
There are growing rumours that the Government plan to bring back their ill-fated Northern Ireland Troubles Bill to the Commons next week. If that is true, it will give us the perfect opportunity to debate the Prime Minister’s links with Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was convicted of fraud and struck off for making multiple false allegations against British soldiers. The Northern Ireland Secretary has told the House repeatedly that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Do MOD Ministers now agree that that is not just naive but simply untrue, especially after the case of Phil Shiner —a man universally hated across the British Army?
There are two key roles that the Ministry of Defence plays within this legislation. The first is to ensure that we protect veterans throughout any legal process to do with Northern Ireland, and the second is to ensure that no one corrupts the system to try to rewrite history with a different narrative. There is a third role, which is to ensure that those families who have lost loved ones who were in the armed forces or the security services get the truth, reconciliation and justice they deserve.
There are two key roles that the Ministry of Defence plays within this legislation. The first is to ensure that we protect veterans throughout any legal process to do with Northern Ireland, and the second is to ensure that no one corrupts the system to try to rewrite history with a different narrative. There is a third role, which is to ensure that those families who have lost loved ones who were in the armed forces or the security services get the truth, reconciliation and justice they deserve.
There are two key roles that the Ministry of Defence plays within this legislation. The first is to ensure that we protect veterans throughout any legal process to do with Northern Ireland, and the second is to ensure that no one corrupts the system to try to rewrite history with a different narrative. There is a third role, which is to ensure that those families who have lost loved ones who were in the armed forces or the security services get the truth, reconciliation and justice they deserve.
There are growing rumours that the Government plan to bring back their ill-fated Northern Ireland Troubles Bill to the Commons next week. If that is true, it will give us the perfect opportunity to debate the Prime Minister’s links with Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was convicted of fraud and struck off for making multiple false allegations against British soldiers. The Northern Ireland Secretary has told the House repeatedly that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Do MOD Ministers now agree that that is not just naive but simply untrue, especially after the case of Phil Shiner —a man universally hated across the British Army?
I was asking about the current Prime Minister, not the next one. After previously denying that the Prime Minister was instructed to act in a case against veterans by Phil Shiner, on 24 February the Veterans Minister had to come to the House and correct the record because the Prime Minister did, in fact, act for Phil Shiner in the al-Jedda case before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. That case effectively opened the floodgates for prosecutions against British Army veterans, which the troubles Bill now threatens to do all over again. To save the Veterans Minister having to come back here again and correct the record twice, can she or this Minister simply tell us why Labour is led by a man who partly made a living out of helping to put British Army soldiers and even their commanders in the dock?
I was asking about the current Prime Minister, not the next one. After previously denying that the Prime Minister was instructed to act in a case against veterans by Phil Shiner, on 24 February the Veterans Minister had to come to the House and correct the record because the Prime Minister did, in fact, act for Phil Shiner in the al-Jedda case before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. That case effectively opened the floodgates for prosecutions against British Army veterans, which the troubles Bill now threatens to do all over again. To save the Veterans Minister having to come back here again and correct the record twice, can she or this Minister simply tell us why Labour is led by a man who partly made a living out of helping to put British Army soldiers and even their commanders in the dock?
I thank the hon. Member for the field promotion—he, obviously, has not had one. We have two roles: protecting veterans and ensuring that no one can rewrite history through the courts. We will push hard on that and deliver it for the veterans who deserve it.
I thank the hon. Member for the field promotion—he, obviously, has not had one. We have two roles: protecting veterans and ensuring that no one can rewrite history through the courts. We will push hard on that and deliver it for the veterans who deserve it.
I thank the hon. Member for the field promotion—he, obviously, has not had one. We have two roles: protecting veterans and ensuring that no one can rewrite history through the courts. We will push hard on that and deliver it for the veterans who deserve it.
I was asking about the current Prime Minister, not the next one. After previously denying that the Prime Minister was instructed to act in a case against veterans by Phil Shiner, on 24 February the Veterans Minister had to come to the House and correct the record because the Prime Minister did, in fact, act for Phil Shiner in the al-Jedda case before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. That case effectively opened the floodgates for prosecutions against British Army veterans, which the troubles Bill now threatens to do all over again. To save the Veterans Minister having to come back here again and correct the record twice, can she or this Minister simply tell us why Labour is led by a man who partly made a living out of helping to put British Army soldiers and even their commanders in the dock?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to correct the record in relation to something I said during the last Defence orals. On 2 February 2026, I said that the Prime Minister did not work with any of Phil Shiner’s organisations and that his role was limited...
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to correct the record in relation to something I said during the last Defence orals. On 2 February 2026, I said that the Prime Minister did not work with any of Phil Shiner’s organisations and that his role was limited...
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, in response to my question, appeared to deny ever being instructed by the disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner, yet I have here the 2007 case of Al-Jedda v. the Secretary of State for Defence, where it quite clearly says that the...
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, in response to my question, appeared to deny ever being instructed by the disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner, yet I have here the 2007 case of Al-Jedda v. the Secretary of State for Defence, where it quite clearly says that the...
Q4
.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con):
I will give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson. However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq. It is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr Shiner’s book about pursuing our veterans via the European Court of Human Rights. Can I ask him specifically: was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?
Q4
.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con):
I will give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson. However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq. It is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr Shiner’s book about pursuing our veterans via the European Court of Human Rights. Can I ask him specifically: was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?
Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.
Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.
Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.
Q4
.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con):
I will give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson. However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq. It is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr Shiner’s book about pursuing our veterans via the European Court of Human Rights. Can I ask him specifically: was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?
To ask the Attorney General, what discussions he has had with the CPS on the potential grounds for prosecuting Phil Shiner for his role in making false allegations against members of the Armed Forces and the misuse of public funds.
To ask the Attorney General, what discussions he has had with the CPS on the potential grounds for prosecuting Phil Shiner for his role in making false allegations against members of the Armed Forces and the misuse of public funds.
I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions at which we discuss a range of issues. In common with the practice adopted by previous administrations, I do not routinely comment on what is discussed at these meetings.
The conduct of criminal investigations is a matter for the police. Should the police wish to seek a charging decision from the CPS, the CPS will consider any papers supplied in accordance with the two stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors: firstly, is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, is a prosecution needed in the public interest.
To ask the Attorney General, whether the CPS has made an assessment of the potential grounds for prosecuting Phil Shiner for the false allegations he made against members of the Armed Forces; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Attorney General, whether the CPS has made an assessment of the potential grounds for prosecuting Phil Shiner for the false allegations he made against members of the Armed Forces; and if he will make a statement.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is not an investigative agency and has no power to investigate allegations of crime. The CPS will review any cases referred to it by the police or other investigators in accordance with the two stage test that is set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Where there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest, such cases will be prosecuted.
Any criminal allegations would need to be reported to the relevant police force to investigate in the first instance.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many legal claims have been lodged by Mr Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers against the Government to date; and what has been the cost to the public purse of (a) legal aid payments in support of such claims and (b)...
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many legal claims have been lodged by Mr Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers against the Government to date; and what has been the cost to the public purse of (a) legal aid payments in support of such claims and (b)...
The number of claims brought against the Government, either by a specific lawyer or law firm; and, the cost to the Government of responding to those claims is not centrally recorded by this Department. Nor is it possible for the Legal Services Commission (LSC) to identify how much legal aid paid to a particular law firm was for cases conducted by individual members of that law firm as the payments are made to the firm as a whole, and not the individual members.
The amounts paid by the LSC to public interest lawyers for undertaking legal aid work each year 2000-01 to 2011-12 is provided in the following table.
| Financial
year | Total
legal aid payments to public interest lawyers
(£) |
| 2000-01 | 9,583 |
| 2001-02 | 32,561 |
| 2002-03 | 59,669 |
| 2003-04 | 139,621 |
| 2004-05 | 158,283 |
| 2005-06 | 251,844 |
| 2006-07 | 299,668 |
| 2007-08 | 490,972 |
| 2008-09 | 628,528 |
| 2009-10 | 253,526 |
| 2010-11 | 450,142 |
| 2011-12 | 320,702 |
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Mr Phil Shiner is in receipt of Government funds through legal aid or any other means.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Mr Phil Shiner is in receipt of Government funds through legal aid or any other means.