Has David Lammy broken the Ministerial Code?

Yesterday, TetleysTLDR wrote a blog that put out the legal case against Israel for the illegal seizure, kidnapping and abduction of the crew of the MV Madleen by armed Israeli troops.  As the blog pointed out: 

Under the Law of the Sea, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the unauthorised boarding and detention of civilians by a state actor in international waters is a serious breach of international law.

This was a British-registered civilian vessel operating in international waters, and as such, it falls under the jurisdiction and protection of the United Kingdom. The British Government has a clear duty of care to safeguard both the vessel and its crew, particularly in matters concerning their safety, legal rights, and wellbeing. The vessel’s British registration also affirms the UK's sovereignty over it, meaning any interference with the ship may be viewed as an infringement on British sovereign interests. Ensuring the protection of British-flagged vessels abroad is not only a legal obligation but a fundamental expression of national sovereignty and international responsibility.

The legal case against the boarding of the MV Madleen

So far, the silence has been deafening from the Foreign Office.

Yesterday respected vlog & blog site the 'Daily Politik' shared a tweet from human rights activist and former diplomat, Craig Murray who said: "I have interesting news from inside the FCDO. Contrary to all Whitehall practice and culture, edict has gone out from Lammy's office that replies and statements re the Madleen are NOT to be cleared with Legal Adviser, Maritime Section. or the Royal Navy"

The Daily Politik quite rightly picked up on this and unpacked it: 

'David Lammy has issued an edict to his Foreign office staff ordering them NOT to check statements or replies to questions about Israel’s illegal interception of the British registered vessel ‘the Madleen freedom flotilla’ with legal advisers, the Royal Navy or the Maritime section. 

This means that David Lammy is telling the civil service representing the foreign office to intentionally omit the facts that they are - usually - obligated to acknowledge. 

A civil servant preparing a ministerial statement or reply to a media question for example, would normally have to clear the draft text with all relevant departments throughout Whitehall and get a consensus text. One that was legally and procedurally accurate.

That includes legal clearance. 

Lammy is seeking to bypass legal clearance on foreign office statements, because the legal advisors, the Navy and the maritime section will all say Israel acted illegally. And if David Lammy acknowledges that, his government will have to take action against Israel'. 

It would not be surprising if David Lammy has chosen silence, you don't have to dig too deep to see why he would.  He's being substantially funded by the Israel Lobby and there is a growing body of evidence that his Government is complicit in Israeli war crimes by supplying intelligence, RAF support and weapons to the Israeli state during a period of ethnic cleansing and genocide.  

As a former diplomat, Craig Murray, is no stranger to the Foreign Office and knows how it functions.  If, as he claims, the UK Foreign Secretary has issued a directive to bypass legal clearance and standard interdepartmental checks in relation to a matter involving the alleged illegal interception of a British vessel by a foreign power (Israel), that raises serious concerns about compliance with the Ministerial Code. 

If we are to determine whether the Code has been breached, the specifics matter greatly.

Relevant parts of the Ministerial Code:

The UK Ministerial Code requires ministers to:

1. Act in accordance with the law.
2. Uphold the impartiality of the civil service.
3. Provide accurate and truthful information to Parliament.
4. Ensure that official advice is sought and considered where appropriate.

If Lammy is actively preventing civil servants from seeking legal advice or factual verification in areas where this would normally be required, especially in drafting statements to Parliament or the public, this could potentially breach:

• Section 1.3 (Ministers must be truthful and open),
• Section 5.1 (The principle of collective and informed decision-making), and
• Section 6.1 (Ministers must not use their position to prevent civil servants from performing duties objectively and in accordance with the law).

The key test:

The intentional obstruction of proper legal and procedural checks, especially on a matter involving alleged international illegality, could constitute a breach, but this hinges on what can be proven. Internal communications, directives, or whistleblower testimony would be necessary to demonstrate that Lammy:

• Knew his actions would lead to an inaccurate or misleading official statement,
• Prevented legal or procedural review for political convenience, and
• Did so in contradiction of advice or standard protocol.

If substantiated, such an action could represent a breach of the Ministerial Code. However, confirmation would require an investigation by the Prime Minister or an independent adviser on ministerial interests, since they are the ultimate arbiters of whether the Code has been breached.  The problem here is that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted to be objective and it is highly likely that he was party to whatever Lammy has cobbled up to protect himself.

So if we are to examine the UK Ministerial Code, we need to look at what may apply if a minister deliberately prevents civil servants from seeking legal or procedural advice:

^{1.1 – Duty to Comply with the Law}

• Relevance: Bypassing legal advice to avoid confirming illegality could violate this principle.

^{1.3 – Accountability to Parliament}

• Relevance: If a statement is made without legal input and omits facts about international law breaches, this may lead to misinformation.

^{5.1 – Decision-Making and Consultation}

• Relevance: Avoiding legal or interdepartmental clearance for statements breaks this principle of informed decision-making.

^{6.1 – Use of Civil Service}

• Relevance: Ordering staff to avoid standard legal or procedural checks may compromise the impartiality and legality of their work.

^{7.3 – Relations with Legal Advisers}

• Relevance: Deliberately avoiding this advice may be considered a serious dereliction of duty.

Lammy's inaction and alleged compromising of the civil servants in his Department not only looks like cowardice but it also dangerous.  Whether or not it is not, it very muck looks like he's purposefully abrogating his responsibilities so as not to kick his paymasters in the balls.  

Israel cannot act with impunity.  If this was the Houties or Iran that had boarded the Madleen, we'd have sent the jets in by now.  Whilst I do not suggest a military response, we cannot treat Israel as if it is above the law, and our Government appears to do this continuously.  At the very least the immediate return of the crew should be our Government's priority.

By not protecting our maritime sovereignty Lammy is failing to act in the national interest and is protecting an out of control state engaged in war crimes and that itself should place him in the crosshairs of the ICC.  If the UK fails to act against Israel for what may constitute an illegal act of piracy under international law, it risks undermining both its legal obligations and its sovereign credibility. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), piracy and unlawful interference with civilian vessels on the high seas are serious violations. Inaction could set a dangerous precedent that British-flagged vessels can be interfered with without consequence, weakening the UK’s authority to protect its maritime assets in future incidents. It may also damage the UK’s standing in international forums, erode trust among allies and the public, and signal tolerance for breaches of international norms, potentially emboldening future violations by other states.

We expect the highest standards of integrity, accountability, and legality from our Members of Parliament, especially those in ministerial roles. Elected officials are entrusted with the responsibility to act not only in the national interest but also within the framework of domestic and international law. This duty remains paramount even when the legal or procedural outcomes may be politically inconvenient or unpopular. The rule of law is not optional, it is a cornerstone of our democracy, and public trust depends on ministers adhering to it fully and transparently, regardless of whether it supports their preferred narrative or policy aims.

No amount of mental gymnastics and obfuscation designed to weasel out of ministerial responsibility will alter that.  

The world has gone mad. If you enjoyed reading this, please feel free to look at the rest of the blogs on www.TetleysTLDR.com. They're free to view, there's no paywall, they aren't monetised and I won't ask you to buy me a coffee. Also please free to share anything you find of interest, we only get the message out if people are aware of it. Just a leftie, standing in front of another leftie, asking to be read. All the best, Tetley