The mothers of two young soldiers killed in Iraq lost their legal attempt in the House of Lords yesterday to force the Government to hold a public inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the conflict.

In a rare nine-judge ruling, which was unanimous, Britain’s highest court held that families did not have a right under the European Convention on Human Rights to require the Government to hold an independent inquiry into the invasion of Iraq.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior law lord, said that there was nothing in Article 2 of the convention, which protects the right to life, to suggest that the families had an enforceable right to such an inquiry.

He said: “I find it impossible to conceive that the proud sovereign states of Europe could ever have contemplated binding themselves legally to establish an independent public inquiry into the process by which a decision might have been made to commit the State’s armed forces to war.”

The test challenge was brought against ministers by the mothers of Gordon Gentle and David Jeffrey Clarke, two 19-year-old British soldiers killed while serving in Iraq.

Only Baroness Hale of Richmond noted the controversy about the Government’s decision to rely on UN Security Council Resolution 678 from the Gulf War as justification for the later invasion.

She added that what the families wanted was “an inquiry into whether or not the conflict in which their sons died was lawful: if my child had died in this way, that is exactly what I would want. I would want to feel that she had died fighting for a just cause,” Lady Hale said, and that, if not, “then someone might be called to account”.

But she agreed with her fellow judges that there was no duty in Article 2 on states not to send soldiers to an unlawful war. Dismissing the appeal, she said: “I do so with sorrow, but my sorrow is nothing to that of all the families and friends of soldiers who have died without knowing whether they were fighting in a just cause. History must be the judge of that.”

Rose Gentle said after the decision: “Only Baroness Hale has had the decency to consider how my family and I feel that Gordon was killed; and we don’t even have the comfort of knowing that he died fighting for a just case. It is as if the other eight law lords have not been able to contemplate the feelings of my family and myself.

“I will never accept that Gordon did die for a just cause; and I will never stop fighting for those responsible to be held to account.”

She called on the Prime Minister “to do the right thing and hold the inquiry that he keeps promising us”.

The families, who may yet take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, were represented by Phil Shiner, a solicitor with Public Interest Lawyers, who said: “The law lords have taken a very narrow approach. The world would not have ended if [they] had found that an independent inquiry did have to look at the legality of the military orders.

“Even since the hearing in mid-February, there have been more damaging disclosures which all support our case that the invasion of Iraq did not have a shred of legality.”

Fusilier Gordon Gentle was serving with the 1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers when he was killed by a roadside bomb in 2004. Trooper David Clarke was serving with The Queen’s Royal Lancers when he was killed by “friendly fire” in 2003.

Lord Bingham, in his ruling, said that the families’ case was that Article 2 of the European Convention imposed a duty on member states to protect life. “This extends to the lives of soldiers. Therefore a state should . . . obtain reliable legal advice before committing its troops to armed conflict.”

The families were not asking the law lords to decide if the use of armed force by Britain in Iraq in 2003 was lawful or unlawful, Lord Bingham said.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure