Attorney general considers anti-nuclear activists’ bid to prosecute Theresa May over Trident deterrent

The Attorney General is considering whether legal action can be brought against Theresa May for having plans in place to use nuclear weapons.

Campaigners believe the existence of the Trident system constitutes a conspiracy to commit a war crime, on the basis its use could cause the deaths of thousands of people.

After it came into use in the 1990s, a British submarine carrying nuclear weapons has always been on patrol somewhere in the world's oceans.

The logic is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK because, even if the nation's conventional defence capabilities were destroyed, the silent submarine would still be able to launch a catastrophic retaliatory strike on the aggressor - a concept known as mutually assured destruction.

The campaigners are hoping to bring a private prosecution against the Government, after Ms May claimed she would press the nuclear button if necessary.

In Parliament last year, the Scottish National Party’s George Kerevan, asked the Prime Minister whether she was "prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children?”

Ms May replied: "Yes".

Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon later confirmed her commitment.

Now, several legal challenges by groups under the Public Interest Case Against Trident (PICAT) banner have been grouped together by the Attorney General’s office, which will decide whether prosecution can go ahead.

“We have a right to try to prevent these crimes being planned," said Angie Zelter, PICAT organiser and long-time peace campaigner, told The Independent.

“If the national system goes against the basic international and humanitarian law … then they’re liable."

She added: "The fact is that you’re not allowed to kill huge numbers of civilians because you think that you’re going to have a military advantage. It’s totally unlawful.”

The Government’s use of Trident would breach the Geneva Conventions Act and other laws, PICAT said.

A spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s office said it "will consider whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges proposed and, if so, whether a prosecution is required in the public interest."

They added: “The attorney will act independently of Government when taking this decision. Work on the application is ongoing. There is a considerable amount of material to work through and we will provide a response as soon as reasonably practicable.”