Lord Goldsmith QC, PC was the longest serving Labour Attorney-General in history. Encouraged by his solicitor father, he studied law at Cambridge prior to his call to the Bar in 1972. Lord Goldsmith went on to develop a successful commercial, corporate and international litigation practice at Fountain Court Chambers, taking silk at the early age of 37. In 1995 he became the youngest ever Chairman of the Bar and in the subsequent year founded the Bar Pro Bono Unit (of which he remains President). Five years later, Lord Goldsmith became Tony Blair’s second Attorney-General. He resigned the appointment in June last year and now works with US firm Debevoise & Plimpton as head of its European litigation practice. He spoke to KB about some of the controversies and successes of his years in Government.

King’s Bench: To what extent were you involved in politics prior to your appointment as Attorney-General?

Lord Goldsmith: I was actually heavily involved in politics when I was at University and maintained my interest subsequently but wasn’t properly active on the national political scene. However, when I became Chairman of the Bar I was very engaged in political issues but of course not from a party political standpoint. One of the interesting features is that Charles Clarke [former Education and Home Secretary] and I were together very much involved in student politics at Cambridge but whereas I didn’t want a full-time political career, Charles did and he went on from his role at the Cambridge Union to become a full-time politician. What is interesting is how thirty years later, through very different routes, we came to sit around the same Cabinet table.

KB: Do the dual roles of politician and lawyer encompassed in the position of Attorney-General pose a fundamental conflict of interest?

LG: No. I think it is critically important that there is, at the heart of Government, a senior lawyer who can help the Government reach effective and lawful solutions in order to meet its objectives. This is especially important since the role of the Lord Chancellor has changed so radically, as the Attorney-General is now only the position left which has to be filled by a senior lawyer.

KB: Isn’t there the danger that the role becomes an overly political one?

LG: The Attorney-General stands at the interface between politics and the law; between the executive and the judiciary. It is therefore important to understand the nature of political life because so many of the decisions that are taken (although they are not political decisions) are made in a political context. That does not mean that you allow political considerations to interfere with your judgment as to what the law requires or as to what the public interest is. But it would be naïve if you didn’t understand what commentators and the world were concerned about.

KB: The advice you gave as to the legality of the Iraq War has proven to be perhaps the most controversial decision of your tenure (and indeed of the previous administration). What do you say to those of your critics who argue that your lack of experience in international law prior to your appointment had a bearing on the advice you gave?

LG: Absolute nonsense. People seem to forget that one of the benefits of being Attorney-General is that you have, as I had, extensive advice within Government on all aspects of the law from people with great knowledge and experience in the various areas. I believed that the advice I gave was right; I still believe that it was right and there are a large number of lawyers who agree with me. Indeed there were a large number of countries that took the same view, which is why the coalition in Iraq has so many different countries included.

KB: Do the Government’s recent revelations about the practice of rendition by the United States on British territory indicate further at a culture of subservience to the United States?

LG: I don’t think it shows that the UK Government was subservient to the United States. I know myself that that wasn’t the case – even if quite a number of the disagreements between us were played out in private and not in public. However I am deeply concerned about this information. We don’t know the full extent of the issues over the two people who were said to have been on the planes that landed on Diego Garcia. I do strongly disapprove of the American practice of extraordinary rendition (by which I mean kidnapping to take people to places where they can be subjected to interrogation methods that we would regard as unlawful) and am troubled by why it is that the United States did not reveal the presence of these two people. I therefore support the calls for a detailed investigation as to what actually took place and as to what the Government is doing to check all the flights that third parties have suggested may have been rendition flights.

KB: Despite the failure of the previous administration to raise the terror detention limit, Gordon Brown seems insistent on pushing to raise the limit to 42 days. Do you think that such measures are again inching us towards internment?

LG: I would put it differently. I am against raising the period of pre-charge detention beyond where it is at the moment, unless it can be shown that it is a necessary thing to do. I don’t think there is evidence to show that it is necessary to do so and I therefore believe that it is counterproductive as well as wrong in principle: counterproductive because it sends the message that we are not a just society which values the liberties of individuals and wrong in principle because I believe that personal liberty is a critical fundamental right that should only be taken away when there is a very strong justification for it.

KB: Are you in favour of the admissibility of phone intercept evidence in court?

LG: I am in favour of it subject to appropriate safeguards. These, first of all, have to include appropriate safeguards for individual privacy so that phone-taps shouldn’t take place unless they are justified in the first place. We have got these already. Secondly, the intelligence agency or the state should not be required to produce evidence which is inculpatory if they wish not to do so because it would reveal secret methods or capabilities. Thirdly, methods have to be found to ensure that the disclosure of phone-tapping is dealt with in a proportionate manner so that the resources of the intelligence agencies are not wasted on fishing expeditions. But I do believe that it is in principle important to allow intercept evidence to be used in court as it will help the prosecution of some of the most dangerous criminals in the country.

KB: How much damage do you think the cash for honours scandal has done to public trust in politics and in the Labour Party?

LG: There is no doubt that cash for honours caused a great deal of damage to the image of politics and indeed to the Labour Party and it is a consequence of the funding arrangements we have. I think we have now reached the stage where the funding arrangements of our political parties are really broken beyond repair and we need a radical new approach so that people don’t start to think that politics is about grubby money-raising. When you look at the way things stand at the moment in politics, if you are going to get your message across, you have to raise money in order to publicise it. The sums that are raised by British political parties remain still insignificant compared to the moneys which are raised in the United States.

KB: Is public funding the solution?

LG: I suspect that partial public funding, though it is unpalatable to many people, has to be part of the future solution.

KB: What do you consider to have been your greatest achievement as Attorney-General?

LG: Transforming the Crown Prosecution Service and taking it from a backward-looking service to a forward-looking service proud to serve the public and the communities in which it works, which plays a central role in the criminal justice system. The CPS has new powers, new responsibilities and new status. They are better protectors of liberties, stronger at prosecuting cases and in facing their role as not just protectors of justice but as the defenders of victims and people too.

KB: Is there anything that you wish you had been able to see through?

LG: I served as Attorney-General longer than I ever intended to do and therefore wanted to step down. However, I think I would have liked to have seen through the reforms of the Serious Fraud Office. I concentrated my early years on volume work, that is work in the Crown Court and the magistrates’ courts, and was turning my attention to fraud cases. We did make a number of important changes to the law but it remains an area I would have liked to have seen through. I would also have liked to have seen employed lawyers, particularly in Government services, really being treated as equals within the profession which is what they are and deserve to be. However there remain pockets of resistance to this.

KB: Why did you decide to join Debevoise & Plimpton?

LG: I thought very hard about what I wanted to do and had a lot of offers, including quite a lot of pressure to come back to the Bar. But I wanted a new challenge and I strongly believe that with the globalisation of the law you need the globalisation of legal practice. Business, commerce and consumers now operate across frontiers in ways they never have before. This offered me the opportunity of a global law practice which I find challenging and rewarding. Debevoise is also a firm which has a strong ethos of public service and pro bono which I strongly support and provided the opportunity for me to continue with these whilst being a full-time lawyer.

KB: What do you expect the future holds for you?

LG: I am someone who has always found new challenges as I have gone through life. Sometimes have been unexpected – for instance I never planned to be Attorney-General. I remain a member of the House of Lords and continue to take part in the legislative process. However I am very much enjoying my present role and have no plans to change it. On the contrary, my present plans are to expand what we are doing here. Personally, despite all the globetrotting that I have been doing recently, I very much hope that my future will involve some appearances in the English courts. That has been my life and so I hope that I will continue to be available for hire!