Tuesday, December 3

Iraqis paid to travel abroad by UK taxpayer to give evidence against British war veterans


 

 

The Iraqis, who have accused troops of abuse over incidents dating back as long ago as 2003, are given spending and living allowances after being flown to hotels overseas for interviews.

A controversial law firm, that shut down over alleged irregularities over its conduct in Iraq, has also been paid money out of public funds to attend the interviews in Turkey and Lebanon.

A senior MP said the payments could act as a ‘lucrative’ incentive for Iraqis to make claims of abuse. MPs questioned why the interviews are not carried out by video link.

The admission over payments followed a series of further damaging revelations made to a defence select committee investigating the treatment of troops.

The parliamentary inquiry heard that British troops are being subjected to secret surveillance by private investigators hired by a recruitment agency. The practice was yesterday branded a serious threat to national security.

The inquiry was also told that investigators have been sacked for offences including impersonating a police officer and falling asleep on the job.

The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (Ihat), which was set up by the Government in 2010, has investigated more than 3,300 allegations of abuse – including murder and torture – made by Iraqis against British troops.

To date, only one soldier has been prosecuted for a minor offence and by next summer, the number of cases still under investigation will have been whittled down to just 60. A series of disclosures in The Telegraph has fuelled growing pressure on the Government to shut down Ihat.

Mark Warwick, the head of Ihat, insisted to the defence sub-committee yesterday that witnesses were paid “the most basic level of expenses” when being flown overseas as part of a sliding scale of payments.

Mr Warwick said the law firm Public Interest lawyers (PIL) was paid by Ihat to attend the interviews and that further fees were paid to an Iraqi ‘fixer’, who had previously worked for PIL.

The law firm closed in the summer after being stripped of its legal aid funding.

Mr Warwick said: “We use a person by the name of Abu Jamal. We use him for a very defined role, he is the most efficient and effective point of contact with the witnesses, we only use him to get to the witnesses. He has no involvement in any investigative activity, identifying lines of inquiry, getting information.”

He was no longer paid by the taxpayer, Mr Warwick added.

Mr Warwick, a retired police officer who admitted he had never visited Iraq, refused to deny that soldiers were being put under surveillance. He said: “I won’t confirm or deny we are using surveillance methods. What I will say is within the manner of our investigative case load it would be rare to use those tactics – if we did use those tactics.”

Conservative MP Johnny Mercer, a former Army captain and the chair of the parliamentary committee, told The Telegraph: “There is a serious risk that paying expenses could be a lucrative opportunity to give evidence against British soldiers. It remarkable that Ihat has been using the same fixer as PIL.”

He added: “It is quite extraordinary that British soldiers are being put under surveillance by their own Government. They are using powers normally reserved for terrorists and criminals to secretly spy on war veterans. There must be a serious risk to security in having private investigators putting senior officers under surveillance.”

Ihat admitted it had “let go” a number of investigators over issues with their work.

Royal Navy Commander Jack Hawkins, Ihat’s deputy head, said: “We have had examples of people not coming up to the right standards.

“I let somebody go… he was asleep on a chair when I walked in the office, I wasn’t comfortable with that, so he went the next day.

“Another person wasn’t wholly accurate on a CV, I wasn’t comfortable with that, so she went very soon afterwards.”

Cdr Hawkins said that one investigator had been caught impersonating a police officer.

“The Ihat in 2011 let an individual go for impersonating a police officer. He tried to gain entry into an Army establishment, he was picked up by the guards at the time.”

He added: “That is a criminal offence, to impersonate a police officer, so if anyone does that we would deal with it appropriately.”

Mr Mercer said: “These incidents, they don’t happen in isolation. They give an overall impression to us of ‘what the hell is going on’.

“The problem is, this thing just seems to have got completely out of control.”