Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer needs to clarify his involvement in a legal case that saw hundreds of British soldiers investigated for alleged war crimes, former head of the Army Lord Dannatt has told GB News.

Lord Dannatt described the story as “extraordinary” and raised concerns over Sir Keir’s personal involvement in the case back in 2007.

MPs voted to remove legal protections for soldiers who served during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

The move means veterans could face prosecution over actions taken during the conflict, sparking anger among former service personnel and their supporters.

Lord Dannatt told GB News: “It’s an extraordinary story that I’m very disappointed to have read in The Telegraph.

“And as you say, it’s even more extraordinary that he acted, in this case without pay, which means that he was obviously personally interested and personally committed to see this thing through.

“And the result of his intervention, way back in 2007, was that a number of soldiers, a large number of soldiers, were investigated time and again as a result of the judgement that he worked to achieve.

“Now it turned out, many years later…that a solicitor’s firm, a gentleman called Shiner, who eventually was struck off, it turned out that his firm was behind many of these cases, that a number of the cases were taken forward based on false information which had been generated.

“And frankly, the whole thing has been a complete disaster, and it’s resulted in a large number of honest, hard-working soldiers who have been doing their duty in Iraq [being investigated].

“There were spillovers of similar situations in Afghanistan being dragged through the courts after countless investigations, and if the Prime Minister has played a role in this, we need to see this exposed, and he needs to explain himself, because frankly, it’s an outrage.

“In the context of what happened last week, quite rightly, Keir Starmer spoke up against what Donald Trump had said.

“But frankly, soldiers shouldn’t be politicised. Soldiers shouldn’t be footballs. Soldiers get up in the morning to do their duty for Queen, now King and country, and they need to be supported on the odd occasion if something’s gone wrong, no one’s above the law, then soldiers should be brought to justice.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Rachel Reeves warned of ‘huge problem’ over inheritance tax pension deadline
• Pension bonus to be scrapped from ISAs under Rachel Reeves’s savings reforms
• Labour moves to ban ‘monster’ e-bikes as MPs move to shut down green vehicles

“But so many of these cases in Iraq were as a result of changed decisions and I think evidence seems to show that Keir Starmer played a role in all this.”

He added: “I think we all need to have a cool, calm look and just see what exactly Keir Starmer’s involvement in all this was asking ourselves the question, why was he prepared, why was he so enthusiastic to be involved, to work without pay?

“Because undoubtedly, the effects of the case that he was involved in unleashed a whole series of repeat investigations, repeat trials of soldiers, many of whom, almost all of whom turned out to have acted properly, and the damage that that would have caused to those individuals lives, to the reputation of the Army and the motivation of serving soldiers and potential soldiers in the future is huge.

“I think this should be thought through and investigated thoroughly.”

The vote passed 373 to 106, giving a majority of 267 last week.

That means the ban on new civil claims relating to Troubles cases will now be lifted.

The remedial order will now move to the House of Lords, where peers must approve it before the law can be changed.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “As the Prime Minister made clear last week, he will never forget the courage, bravery and sacrifice made for their country by British servicemen and women.

“During his career, the Prime Minister has represented British soldiers who were killed in action and were wrongly accused.

“The Prime Minister did not represent the claimants in this case. He represented interveners, including the Law Society of England and Wales.

“The role of an intervener is to assist the court on points of law, not to advocate for either side.

“The Prime Minister was not involved in the subsequent case heard in the European Court of Human Rights.”