Keir Starmer is facing a ferocious political broadside after Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick accused him of championing anti-British activism and undermining the UK’s armed forces in a damning letter sent to Downing Street.
The letter, dated 26 June, lambasted Starmer for his 2001 pro bono legal defence of Lindis Percy, a serial trespasser known for her repeated incursions into sensitive RAF and US military bases.
Percy, arrested over 500 times, sought to disrupt and damage military aircraft in protest against the UK’s defence posture—actions Jenrick described as “politically motivated sabotage.”
In a blistering attack, Jenrick dismantled the government’s claim that Starmer had no choice but to represent Percy under the “cab rank rule,” which requires barristers to accept cases within their field. Jenrick cited specific guidance in the Bar Standards Board Handbook—namely rule rC30.8—which states that barristers are not bound by the rule in cases where no fee is offered.
“You must now correct it and make clear you acted voluntarily,” Jenrick wrote, accusing Starmer of choosing to defend someone who repeatedly endangered military operations.
More explosively, Jenrick claimed that Starmer’s legal strategy sought to create a precedent that would shield acts of sabotage from legal consequences. “Had you succeeded, last week’s raid on RAF Brize Norton would today be on firm legal ground,” the letter warned, referencing the recent incursion by climate activists at the military airbase.
Jenrick further accused Starmer of politicising his legal work by featuring Percy in his 2020 Labour leadership campaign video—a move Jenrick said was tantamount to endorsing anti-military activism. “Once a lawyer selects a client for political promotion, that clearly becomes endorsement of them and their actions,” the letter asserted.
The implications of Jenrick’s letter are severe. By tying Starmer’s legal choices to contemporary security threats, Jenrick painted the Prime Minister as someone whose past sympathies align with those who actively oppose Britain’s armed forces. “The public is entitled to interpret your views as anti-British and a threat to our national security,” he declared.
Critics argue that Starmer’s pattern of behaviour—from defending serial trespassers to promoting them in political materials—raises troubling questions about his judgment, loyalty, and priorities. At a time when global instability is on the rise, opponents say the country cannot afford a Prime Minister whose track record includes defending those who target defence infrastructure.
Downing Street has not yet issued a formal response to Jenrick’s letter, and Labour officials have remained tight-lipped. However, the political damage may already be mounting, with growing unease among defence circles and veterans’ groups.
As Starmer’s past legal work resurfaces under scrutiny, the Prime Minister may find it increasingly difficult to reconcile his former choices with the demands of leading a nation that depends on its armed forces for security at home and abroad.
