An open letter to the UK government condemning the escalating humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip has been signed by more than 600 UK-qualified lawyers, legal scholars and former members of the judiciary.

The letter called on the UK government to suspend weapons exports to Israel, among other actions, saying it could make Britain complicit in genocide.  

It comes amid a worsening situation in Gaza and growing political pressure on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak after seven aid workers, including three British nationals, were killed by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza earlier this week.  

The letter, signatories of which include former Supreme Court President Baroness Hale and retired Supreme Court Justices Lord Sumption and Lord Wilson, pointed to warnings from the UN and international aid agencies of imminent famine in Gaza and a possible ground offensive in Rafah, “the last place of refuge for two-thirds of the population”.

It also highlighted the International Court of Justice’s provisional order from 26 January, which it says found there was “a plausible risk of genocide” in Gaza.  

The UK government is obliged under international law to work actively to secure a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the letter said, and “take all available measures to ensure safe access to and delivery of the essentials of existence and medical assistance to Palestinians in Gaza”.

It said it is also obliged to impose sanctions on those who have incited genocide against Palestinians and “suspend the 2030 Road Map for UK-Israel bilateral relations and negotiations towards an enhanced trade agreement”.

The letter’s signatories, writing as individuals, include four former appellate court justices; silks and juniors at leading sets; two former chairs of the Criminal Bar Association; and partners from law firms such as Bindmans, Leigh Day, Bates Wells, Thompsons, Duncan Lewis and Hickman & Rose, including Sir Geoffrey Bindman and Imran Khan KC.

The letter has divided opinion in UK legal circles, with legal journalist Joshua Rozenberg KC writing on Substack that its claim the ICJ had concluded that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza was a “disturbing error”.

“The words ‘plausible risk’ appear nowhere in the court’s order,” wrote Rozenberg, who claimed it was “a misrepresentation of what the court concluded”.

Rozenberg quoted the relevant paragraphs and discussed the court’s findings, saying – in his interpretation – that most the ICJ found was that “there was a risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights [of Palestinians] found by the court to be plausible if provisional measures were not issued. If that meant there was a plausible risk of genocide, the court would have said so”.

In response, Alex Goodman KC, a signatory of the letter, wrote on LinkedIn that “the ICJ’s order goes beyond deciding questions of formal plausibility or admissibility”.