Direct Access Barrister
John-Paul Fitzgibbon
Direct Access Barrister
John-Paul Fitzgibbon
My main work is weapons law. That means advising on whether a new weapon, munition or military system can lawfully be developed, tested, transferred or used, and on what a manufacturer or government department must do to show it can. During my military career I carried out formal legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of warfare under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Those reviews covered capabilities being developed within UK Defence and systems intended for transfer to allied nations.
I came to the Bar in 2018, part way through a Royal Navy career of more than twenty years. I served first as a warfare officer and then as a military lawyer, advising commanders, government departments, scientists and engineers. I have sat in on live fire trials and worked with project teams from early concept through to a system entering service, so I understand the technical and commercial pressures clients are under as well as the law that applies to them.
I also work on inquests and public inquiries. I have presided over two Defence Safety Authority Service Inquiries into deaths and I chair and write Domestic Abuse Related Death Reviews.
Area of Law
Public International Law
Public international law is the law that governs states and armed forces. My work in it is concentrated on weapons law and international humanitarian law, which is also called the law of armed conflict.
The central question I answer is whether a particular weapon, munition, platform or piece of software can lawfully be used, and in what circumstances. Under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, states have to review new weapons, means and methods of warfare before they are adopted. I conducted those reviews in service, on British capabilities and on systems transferred to partner nations. I now advise manufacturers and government clients on the same ground from the outside: what the review will look for, what testing and trials data is needed, how autonomy and artificial intelligence change the analysis, and what a client should do when the honest answer is that the law is unsettled.
I also advise on targeting, rules of engagement, self-defence, transfers of equipment to other states, and international human rights law where it overlaps. I train military personnel, officials and capability teams in these subjects.
What sort of work do I do?
Much of my work is advisory and it usually starts early, while a product or a project is still being designed. I advise on legal reviews of new weapons, means and methods of warfare under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, on the law of armed conflict, and on the rules that govern autonomy, artificial intelligence and other emerging technology in military systems. I help clients work out what evidence a review will need, how trials and testing should be designed to produce it, and how to record decisions so the answer holds up later. I advise on the legal side of transfers to allied and partner nations, on targeting and rules of engagement questions, and on the design of internal governance and assurance.
I also write opinions, deliver training to legal, engineering and capability teams, and sit as an accredited civil and commercial mediator.
Separately, I act in inquests before the Coroners' Courts, including Article 2 inquests, and in statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. I have run investigations into fatalities from the other side of the table, as president of a service inquiry and as an independent chair.
Who do I work for?
Most of my weapons law clients are organisations: defence manufacturers, prime contractors, smaller engineering and technology firms, and start-ups moving into the defence sector for the first time. I also advise investors carrying out due diligence, government departments and overseas governments.
In inquest and inquiry work I represent interested persons or core participants.
I am happy to be approached directly by a business or an individual without a solicitor. If a case is not suitable for public access I will say so.