Opinion: ‘Activist’ and ‘lefty’ lawyers are simply doing their jobs
A fair and just court process demands that clients on both sides have competent representation. Why then are some notable ministers trying to villainise lawyers for trying to do what they should to uphold the rule of law?
A few weeks ago the Home Office released a video on their Twitter. It centred on immigration law and the work they were doing to remove those without the legal right to remain in the UK. The video asserted that current procedures are ‘rigid and open to abuse allowing activist lawyers to delay and disrupt returns.’ Though the video has since been taken down, it was only after it was viewed over a million times. Home Secretary Priti Patel, despite this apparent perhaps forced regret, continues to repeatedly express the same sentiment.
This language is echoed by the Prime Minister himself. Boris Johnson claims he and his government are trying their very best to stop ‘the whole criminal justice system from being hamstrung by what the Home Secretary would doubtless – and rightly – call the lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders.’ It is not the persistent underfunding, the extensive delays, the ever-increasing backlog of cases and the decaying court estate. No, it is the underpaid ‘do-gooders’ at fault. They are at fault for doing their professional duty.
It is hard to define what was meant by ‘activist lawyers.’ One can assume from context that it refers to those trying to stop the deportation of immigrants and refugees. As Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister, argues ‘the very worst of them, it seems, are those who succeed on behalf of their clients’. So rather absurdly, speaking on the behalf of a client has become a political statement, even though this is simply how a fair judicial system operates. We need to argue on both sides. When you decide one side of an argument is not worth hearing out and listening to, a fundamental aspect of the rule of law is lost.
These somewhat confused and emotionally loaded statements therefore force us to question whether it is the lawyers these politicians are putting in the line of fire, or the laws themselves. Yes, it is true the law can work to the advantage of the undeserving. But this does not mean that reformation with the potential of endangering the vulnerable is the answer.
The legal community has been quick to respond. Both the Bar Society and the Law Society have made statements regarding their shock and disappointment at the comments. The Secret Barrister, who changed his Twitter name to The Secret Activist Lawyer, was even so bold as to claim that the government would stop being so vexed by lawyers ‘if it just stopped breaking the law.’ I would stand to agree. This seems to be another attempt to water down the protections guaranteed under the Human Rights Act 1998. The system the UK presently uses has held the government accountable and puts bad decisions under review. This should not be changed.
“It is vital in a democratic society that each case is judged on merit and it is the role of the justice system to determine the validity of claims. This function is and must remain independent of government, media and public opinion.”
There are incredibly dangerous ramifications of conflating the judicial and the political spheres in this manner. Lawyers are once again being portrayed as the ‘enemies of the people.’ Following the Miller Case, wherein the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s right to trigger article 50, judges were scorned and portrayed as agitators, determined to frustrate the government’s plans. These prolonged attacks on lawyers and judges for holding the government to account pose a grave threat. If legal professionals were to make decisions based on what the media may say, or what politicians in power preach then the rule of law as we know it would be critically corrupted.
Despite this, the government seems content in pushing misconceptions about the law to further their political objectives. When she was Home Secretary, Theresa May professed that an illegal immigrant was allowed to stay solely due to the fact he had a pet cat. Though she later retracted it and there have been masses of press since surrounding ‘cat-gate’, the statement she was ‘not making … up’ had already done damage. The misrepresentation is still used for political gain as a reason to push for substantial change in human rights law.
It is not the role of a lawyer to play political games, nor should it be. This use of rhetoric to insult professionals doing their job has been received with outcries from the legal community, yet certain government officials seem to be persisting. As things are, our legal system is far from perfect - there are many instances where the most vulnerable fall through the cracks. Nonetheless, in the instances where human rights are upheld, and wrongful deportations are stalled, I admire the protections that the law provides and this should not be denounced.