Goldsmith defends courts martial

Lord Goldsmith says "nobody is above the law"

Lord Goldsmith has denied there were political motivations behind the prosecution of British soldiers for alleged offences in Iraq.

He defended courts martial such as last week's prosecution of four soldiers accused of manslaughter.

The men were accused of causing the drowning of an Iraqi teenager and waited three years for their acquittal.

The Attorney General said such action is sometimes necessary because "nobody is above the law".

The four Guardsmen were charged with forcing 15-year-old Ahmed Jabar Karheem into the Shatt al-Basra canal in Basra at gunpoint in May 2003.

He was unable to swim and subsequently drowned.

A jury took less than five hours to clear Guardsman Joseph McCleary, Guardsman Martin McGing and Colour Sergeant Carle Selman.

Lance Corporal James Cooke was cleared at an earlier hearing.

No evidence

Since the soldiers' acquittal critics have said the case should never have been brought before a court, because there was no evidence to support the charges.

Lord Goldsmith, writing in the Daily Telegraph, said that "misunderstood the process of justice" and was "quite wrong".

He also said the idea that such prosecutions were politically motivated were a "myth".

He said: "They are not. They are taken by independent, professional people often with the advice of some of the top QCs in the country."

Lord Goldsmith said an acquittal did not mean there was never a case to answer, and that the rule of law should always apply in "those isolated cases where there is a credible allegation of serious wrongdoing".

He also said judges and juries should decide if someone is guilty or innocent and not prosecutors, police or government ministers.