AG Lord Hermer on international law: 'Bring it on, if that’s the fight people want to have'

When Keir Starmer won the keys to No 10, his longstanding friend, fellow human rights lawyer Richard Hermer KC, became Lord Hermer, Attorney General. With legally fraught matters dominating the early months of the new Labour government – not least Israel-Palestine – it is little surprise that the appointment of a barrister from outside Parliament, who counts none other than Gerry Adams and Shamima Begum as former clients, has been the subject of intrigue.

Sitting in his parliamentary office below an artwork depicting the Ivory Coast, which he acquired after representing 30,000 people injured there by illegally dumped toxic waste, Hermer gives one of his first interviews as Attorney General to The House.

In the few public pronouncements he has made, a single theme has emerged: respect for the rule of law. “International law is the rule of law writ large,” he declared in his Bingham lecture last year. Conservative critics reacted by saying the AG’s views would see national sovereignty undermined.

“Bring it on, if that’s the fight people want to have,” says Hermer. 

With a chuckle, he tells The House: “I’m not really sure what they’re driving at. If they are criticising the government because it wants to comply with international law, if they want to pick a fight with the government because it says international law is important and that we want to uphold international law, then that’s a fight I’d quite look forward to.”

The Labour peer says compliance with international law is “absolutely essential for peace and security” and “allows markets to flourish with certainty”. He also bats away the idea that he promotes “rule by lawyers”. 

“One of the things I did in the very early days of the government was to reiterate the importance, from a rule of law perspective, that government complies with the law. Now that may sound like an incredibly trite proposition, but unfortunately, over the past few years, there have been too many examples of the government seeking not to comply with its lawful obligations in a way that I think would have been unimaginable to people of any main political party 10 years ago.”

“It hasn’t been in the remotest bit hellish. I am absolutely relishing this opportunity”

Hermer praises predecessors Victoria Prentis, Dominic Grieve and Jeremy Wright. Suella Braverman goes unnamed. It is her changes to guidance for government lawyers, whom she saw as being hindered by a “computer says no” culture, that Hermer has sought to undo with a revised version.

“The ministerial code has always required ministers, unsurprisingly, to comply with the law. What I’m seeking to do is to ensure that lawyers are properly equipped to ensure that ministers discharge that duty,” the Attorney General says.

“Now, decisions were always those for ministers, not for lawyers. But government works best, from the perspective of legality, where lawyers are properly able to advise ministers as to their risk.”

Hermer, 56, lives in north London – formerly Starmer’s constituency but now Tulip Siddiq’s seat after redrawn boundaries – but he was born and raised in Cardiff. He has no Welsh accent but says this doesn’t mean he is “posh”, though “it might have poshed up a bit since I went to the Bar”. His solicitor father was a Tory councillor, which allowed Hermer to hone his debating skills around the dinner table.

The barrister has always been politically engaged: while studying history and politics at Manchester University, he was chair of the students’ union and a national executive member of the National Union of Students. Contemporaries including Stephen Twigg and Derek Draper entered politics, but Hermer decided to make his contribution through law instead.

Asked to place his politics on the Labour spectrum, Hermer sounds much like Starmer in saying: “I’ve never allied myself to a particular faction within the Labour Party. I’ve never thought that factionalism is particularly helpful for a political party.” The only Labour leader he definitively rejects as not aligning with his “political philosophy” is Jeremy Corbyn.

Hermer is from a Jewish family, though he describes himself today as a “deeply cynical agnostic”. For him, was the problem Corbyn or the antisemitism crisis under his leadership? “I felt that Jeremy Corbyn’s politics did not represent the politics that gave Labour any realistic prospects of being in government.” He goes on to praise “what Keir has done to detoxify the party” after the “low point” of the Equality and Human Rights Commission finding Labour in breach of equalities law.

Hermer started his career at home in Cardiff but soon realised he needed to be in London for “the really interesting human rights work”. After a couple of years, he moved to Doughty Street Chambers, of which Starmer was a founding member. How did they first meet?

“On my very first night in 1996 – fresh-faced, slightly nervous about coming to a new place up in London – somebody came up, put their arm around me and said, ‘We’re taking you out for dinner tonight.’ And that was Keir,” Hermer recalls. “He didn’t know me. He just recognised someone who was new and needed a bit of looking after. We went out for dinner, and we’ve remained friends ever since.”

He worked on a number of cases with Starmer over the years, including in Parliament. “Before the Supreme Court was created in 2010, the final court of appeal would be a committee of the House of Lords with the law lords. You’d do it in committee room one. I went up for a meeting there before Christmas, and I realised the last time I’d been in that room was with Keir on a case.”

Did he have an inkling all those years ago that his colleague would become director of public prosecutions and prime minister?

“If someone had told me that that’s what he wanted to do, I wouldn’t have been the slightest bit surprised,” Hermer says.

“Unsurprisingly as a friend, I’ve got an incredibly high opinion of Keir, but he is someone who has married ambition with modesty and really extraordinary ability with effectiveness. I say this because he’s a friend, but he is also someone I just enormously admire.”

But asked whether he knew the AG post would be his if Starmer reached No 10, he shoots back: “No. That’s an easy one!” Hermer will not disclose how the job prospect was raised – “it was all private, so I don’t really want to go into the process as to how the offer came about” – but says it was “never a job I sought”.

He does reveal that the Prime Minister warned him of “the downsides – the impact on family life, the impact on loss of privacy”, which Starmer himself is understood to feel acutely. “But once it had dawned on me this was an offer to do this job, I don’t think I could ever have turned it down.”

As a barrister, Hermer worked from home at least three days a week; he says the biggest shock of entering government so far has been “having to wear a suit and tie at least five days a week – and sometimes seven!” Following a party line is another significant change, he agrees, but worth it: “The slight loss that I can’t sound off in the pub about everything I happen to think about a given subject is a small sacrifice to pay.”

“To be a law officer is to be in hell.” So said Sir Patrick Hastings – a brilliant barrister who made for a disastrous AG to Ramsay MacDonald, triggering the government’s collapse with the unwise prosecution of a communist publication. Hermer cheerfully insists: “It hasn’t been in the remotest bit hellish. I am absolutely relishing this opportunity.”

(His job presumably becomes a little hellish after this interview, however: Hermer is the subject of controversy and media attention when the opposition demands an investigation into whether he has advised the government on issues in which he has conflicts of interest. Specifically, it is pointed out that he previously advised Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams, who could be in line to receive compensation if the Legacy Act is repealed by the government.

The cabinet secretary dismisses the calls for an investigation. A spokesperson for the AG’s office gets in touch to explain their position, saying: “Law officers, by their experience and very professional nature will have an extensive legal background and may have previously been involved in a wide number of past cases.

“That is why there is a robust system for considering and managing any conflicts that may arise... There is the established process on ministerial declarations, with previous employment and interests having been published for the public record.”)

“To suggest that the police officers or politicians are applying some form of double standards... is outrageous”

Does Hermer now see himself as a politician? “No, I don’t. I think it’s very important in this job as Attorney General, where your job is to ensure that the government is complying with the law, not to see yourself as involved in day-to-day retail politics but to ensure you have the ability to provide independent, impartial advice that is not tainted by day-to-day political considerations.”

When the Labour government announced a partial ban on arms sales to Israel in September, the decision was criticised both by those who accused ministers of emboldening Hamas and those who thought the measure did not go far enough. Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general in opposition who was ejected to make way for Hermer, said the timing was “unfortunate”. It was widely thought the half-way solution brought little political benefit.

Under the ministerial code, the Attorney General cannot say what legal advice he has given to the government nor, even, whether he has given advice on a particular matter. Labour’s change of tack on Israel has been attributed to him nonetheless – mostly because it falls firmly under his remit, but also due to his background. In 2023 he wrote an open letter with other Jewish lawyers calling on Israel to follow international law in responding to the October 7 attacks, and he advised Labour on the Anti-BDS Bill.

Now critics of Israel’s actions who were hopeful of Hermer being on their side ask why, for example, the UK has not stopped all trading with the settlements, after the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion said states should not enter economic dealings with the occupied territories. 

“That is a long and detailed advisory opinion with many different elements and aspects to it,” says Hermer. “As everybody would expect, we want to have a think about that in detail and see how it applies across government, and the extent to which it does apply across government. 

“What we will ensure that we do is that where we end up will be a point at which we are in compliance with our international law obligations, in so far as we are not already.”

Can the Attorney General say whether, at this very moment, he believes the UK is fully compliant?

He pauses, appearing to choose his words carefully, before answering: “I am currently not aware of any aspect in which the United Kingdom is knowingly in breach of our international law obligations.”

Asked about the “two-tier Keir” phrase aimed at the Prime Minister amid the summer riots, which prompted social media users – including Elon Musk – to claim police were handling those involved worse than they had treated minority groups, Hermer is more emphatic.

“I think it is frankly outrageous to seek to draw a comparison between how the criminal justice responded to people such as those who were trying to burn down a hotel with people living in it, who were violently attacking police officers, who were burning down a library in Liverpool, outrageous criminal action… with protest, for example, in which no one has been injured; no one has been hurt.

“To suggest that the police officers or politicians are applying some form of double standards by not treating them as the same is outrageous.”

He does not, however, accept the view of other progressive defence barristers that the Crown Prosecution Service is going ahead with protest cases that are resource-intensive and do not meet the public interest test.

“I’ve heard plenty of criticism, and I think we’ve always got to look at that carefully and always check ourselves as to whether the balance is still being correctly struck, reminding ourselves of the importance of the right to public protest. But I see nothing yet to suggest the balance is wrong.”

Grooming gangs is another subject that has been propelled to the front pages by discussions on X. With the government rejecting the call for a national inquiry, how can it convince the public that justice is being done?

Here, Hermer talks of the need “to look across the board and to ask ourselves with an open mind, ‘Are there outstanding questions – notwithstanding the inquiries and prosecutions that have taken place so far – that need to be explored in order to achieve our overriding aim of ensuring that children and the vulnerable are protected?’”

Child sexual abuse inquiry chair Alexis Jay has been clear that implementation of existing recommendations must be the focus, he says. 

But Hermer adds that this would not prevent the government acting in “the interests of children”. He says: “Not short-term political interests, not an easy answer to a question from a hostile MP, not in a headline in a newspaper, but looking hard on detailed, grown up, mature analysis as to whether or not further steps are required to help protect vulnerable children or not. And if they are required, what is the most effective manifestation those further steps should have.”

One might read this as a lawyer’s way of saying: all options remain on the table. Shortly after our interview, the Home Secretary announces plans for a nationwide review of grooming gang evidence and five government-backed local inquiries.

Hermer concludes with another strong defence of Starmer. “I’m actually really proud that the DPP, Keir, when he was in that post, instigated so many of the steps, not least the prosecutions, that threw a spotlight [on the gangs]. That isn’t something that he boasted about – that’s something he just got on and did.”

“It’s a hallmark of the way that Keir leads,” he adds. “That is one of a myriad of different reflections of why I’m so privileged to be part of this government.”

Sources who have known Hermer for years tell The House they think he could well resign if, say, he fails to secure further progress on UK compliance with the ICJ view on Israel. “It’s such low stakes for him,” one remarks, pointing out he can easily return to the day job. 

Yet perhaps this prediction underestimates the loyalty Hermer has to his old friend and former head of chambers. It is often said Starmer has few real political allies around the Cabinet table – can Hermer, who has known him longest, fulfil that role?

PoliticsHome Newsletters

Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.