The United Kingdom Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has defended an anti-war protester accused of attempting to sabotage US military aircraft by drawing renewed attention following a similar incident at an RAF base.
On Friday, pro-Palestinian activists allegedly gained access to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. In footage posted by Palestine Action, two individuals were seen on the base, with one appearing to spray paint into the engine of an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker.
The incident prompted the scrutiny of Sir Keir’s legal record, particularly his role in a 2003 case involving anti-war activists who broke into RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. The group, known as the Fairford Five, had attempted to disrupt the operations of US bombers scheduled to fly missions to Iraq.
At the time, Starmer was a prominent human rights barrister. He represented Josh Richards, who was found near a cut fence at the base in possession of a homemade incendiary mixture. Richards claimed he intended to damage aircraft to prevent what he believed were imminent war crimes.
Starmer argued that while the actions broke the law, they were morally justified in the context of trying to stop unlawful acts of war. “Even if the argument leads to anarchy,” he reportedly told the court, “it should be heard.” Richards was ultimately cleared after the jury failed to reach a verdict.
Parallels have been drawn between that case and Friday’s protest at Brize Norton. Critics, including senior conservatives, seized on the revelation. Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch tweeted:
“Worth noting that Keir Starmer defended an activist who broke into an RAF base to set fire to aircraft. Starmer claimed his client was legally justified because it might stop a war crime. If he’d won that argument in 2004, what happened at Brize Norton would be perfectly legal.”
In response, Downing Street pointed to the legal profession’s cab rank rule, which obliges barristers to accept any case within their area of competence. Labour also defended Starmer’s record, citing remarks by Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general: “Don’t judge a surgeon by their patients, a journalist by their interviewees or a lawyer by their clients.”
The Fairford case led to six trials. Of the five accused, two were convicted of damaging US military equipment, two were acquitted, and Richards’ trial resulted in no verdict.
Starmer argues…
At the time, Starmer also argued that courts should be allowed to examine the legality of the Iraq War, despite its backing by Parliament. He said the government’s resolution in support of military action did not preclude legal challenges.
In contrast, Starmer today condemned the Brize Norton protest as disgraceful, stating: “Our Armed Forces represent the very best of Britain and put their lives on the line for us every day. It is our responsibility to support those who defend us.”
This is not the first time Starmer has faced political criticism for cases taken during his legal career. In 2001, he defended the right of a protester to deface a US flag outside a Norfolk air base, calling flag burning “a form of protest activity renowned the world over.”
He also previously secured the release of convicted arsonist Paul Stellato, who had terrorised a family after arguing his detention was unlawful. Stellato later received compensation and was ultimately jailed for life in 2018 after attempting to purchase hand grenades.
A Conservative Party spokesperson commented:
“There is a reason our PM was chosen to represent people who think nothing of setting fire to RAF jets – as a lawyer, he made a career out of representing these sorts of criminals and anti-British activists. Starmer can act like a statesman now, but we all know that deep down he’s still the Leftie liberal.”
