TONY BLAIR’S lawyers will have to rehearse the detailed reasons for invading Iraq after a dramatic victory by the families of four soldiers killed there.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the families were entitled to seek a judicial review of the Government’s refusal to hold an inquiry into why Britain entered the conflict. There will be a three-day hearing in November when the Prime Minister’s lawyers must rerun the Government’s case for an invasion.

The Liberal Democrat MP Michael Moore said that the judgment “brings us one step closer to what the Government fears and the public expect: a full public inquiry on the war against Iraq”.

But senior officials pointed to the judges’ remarks doubting whether it would be appropriate to order an inquiry. They said that the Government would repeat the arguments made at the time. “We do not see this going very far,” one said.

The appeal judges concluded that there was force in the argument that the circumstances leading up to the invasion were insufficiently clear as to warrant an investigation into that, into the lawfulness of the invasion itself and into whether it caused the men’s deaths.

The applicants are relatives of four men who died in military action. They want to force a full public inquiry into why Britain entered the conflict.

Three days were set aside for a hearing in November.

Technically, this will be an application for leave to bring a judicial review against the Government for refusing an inquiry. The judges will hear full arguments from both sides and reach a decision on the merits of the challenge, lawyers said.

Neither the Prime Minister nor any witnesses will attend, but lawyers for each side will submit full evidence in support of their outline arguments.

On the Government’s side, this will chiefly mean papers already in the public domain.

The three judges saw “formidable hurdles” for the applicants and did not want to encourage them to think that they would succeed. They said: “We are doubtful whether it would be appropriate to order a public inquiry of the kind sought.” The matters raised were “essentially matters for the executive and Parliament”.

But permission was granted “because the case raises questions of considerable general importance which should, we think, be finally decided after full argument”.

The ruling was given by a panel of top judges — Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Judge, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, and Lord Justice Dyson.

Phil Shiner, the families’ solicitor, said: “The Government must finally explain how the 13-page equivocal advice from the Attorney-General of March 7, 2003, was changed within ten days to a one-page completely unequivocal advice that an invasion would be legal. In changing his advice, he sent these soldiers to their deaths.”

The action was brought by Peter Brierley, the father of Shaun Brierley; Beverley Clarke, the mother of David Clarke; Rose Gentle, the mother of Gordon Gentle; and Susan Smith, the mother of Phillip Hewett.

Lance Corporal Shaun Brierley, 28, a father of one from Batley, West Yorkshire, was serving with 212 Signals Squadron when he was killed in a crash in Kuwait in March 2003.

Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke, 19, from Littleworth, Staffordshire, was one of two soldiers who died in March 2003 in a “friendly fire” incident west of Basra.

Gordon Gentle, 19, from Glasgow, a fusilier of Royal Highland Fusiliers, died in June 2004 in an attack in Basra.

Private Phillip Hewett, 21, from Tamworth, Staffordshire, was one of three soldiers from C Company, the 1st Battalion Staffordshire Regiment, who died in a roadside bomb blast in al-Amarah in July last year.

The judges said that the families’ case was that Britain had an implied obligation to hold an inquiry under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the “right to life”.

Rabinder Singh, QC, for the families, argued that the aim of an inquiry would not be to make a political point but to discover the full facts.

He said that to justify an inquiry it was not necessary to show that the invasion was carried out in bad faith, just that there was evidence “to suggest that the circumstances leading up to the invasion remain unclear and deserve investigation — as does the lawfulness of the invasion, and the question whether the unlawfulness of the invasion was causative of the deaths”.

Times Recommends

• Rio Tinto four held as China prepares case
• Diplomats must keep heads down and trousers up
• When in Rome should one make like Berlusconi?