Human rights lawyer who made millions hauling war heroes through compensation may be forced to attend inquiry
The inquiry has written FOUR times to Phil Shiner's firm inviting them to attend - but they have not responded once
A “TANK chasing” lawyer is failing to cooperate with a defence committee inquiry into how heroes facing legal action are supported.
Self-styled Human Rights lawyer Phil Shiner - who owns legal firm Public Interest Lawyers - has made millions hauling heroes through countless probes to win compensation cash.
But now MPs are looking at ways to FORCE him to turn up and answer their questions.
The select committee inquiry is probing whether British forces being investigated after claims made by Shiner’s firm are being properly supported by the MoD through the ordeal.
It comes after many claimed they were “hung out to dry” by the rash of allegations fuelled by a compensation culture and taxpayer-funded legal aid.
Former Army officer turned MP Johnny Mercer – who launched the committee - revealed Shiner may have to be forced to attend if he continues to ignore pleas to attend.
He said: “Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) have essentially palmed us off at every opportunity.
“They’re refusing to engage with us.
“I think it’s slightly ironic that he has spent years hounding British troops – and yet when he has an opportunity to come forward so we can make sure things are done properly he’s not interested.
“He’s never given a reason for why he won’t appear - he just won’t engage.
“We are looking at what we can do to compel him to appear. We will do everything we can to make sure he appears.”
Under Commons rules Select Committees can formally summon witnesses if they do not attend voluntarily.
But if the firm disregards the summons, the committee has the option of making a report to the House of Commons arguing he has committed a “contempt”.
So far the committee – launched last month – has written FOUR times to PIL inviting them to attend but they have not responded once.
The inquiry has already heard British soldiers hounded as a result of incidents in Iraq a decade ago were threatened with arrest at home and on military bases by taxpayer-funded detectives.
RELATED STORIES
And how an ex-policemen working for the Iraq Historical Allegations Team turned up at a base to arrest an officer – acquitted of any wrongdoing ten years ago – with no legal power to do so.
New evidence of the “heavy-handed” practices by the IHAT team was uncovered by Mercer’s Defence Select Committee inquiry.
All the IHAT investigations are sparked by legal cases launched by two law firms, Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day.
Mercer said lawyers from Leigh Day had engaged with his inquiry and were being, “helpful.”
So far more than 1,500 claims of wrongdoing are being investigated by IHAT as part of a £57million probe.
Mercer said: “I fully understand the need to investigate allegations of abuse by UK Forces on operations.
“The British Army upholds the highest standards of professionalism, and any deviation from that is unacceptable.
“My inquiry only seeks to ensure that this is a fair, legal and honest process, and that our Servicemen and women are not hung out to dry in the process, as so many of them caught up in process allege.
“I want to ensure that what is ultimately an MOD investigation, is conducted in accordance with the law - a rather low threshold if you ask me.”
He has spent years hounding British troops – and yet when he has an opportunity to come forward so we can make sure things are done properly he’s not interested
MP Johnny Mercer
The Sun revealed Phil Shiner had won the right to have the first hearing of a tribunal he faces heard in secret after saying he was sick.
Shiner and Leigh Day have both been charged by their professional watchdog the Solicitors Regulation Authority over alleged breaches during a war crimes inquiry.
The £31m five year long Al-Sweady Inquiry found allegations British troops murdered and tortured Iraqi’s was false.
Shiner and lawyers from Leigh Day will have to give evidence at a hearing later this year.
All face being struck off if found guilty.