Archives Home page Judge not lest..... More or less since the time Michael Howard became a Conservative government Home Secretary there has been an unsettling level of interference by governments in legal process and the judiciary. Such interference has never resulted in good effect, least of all in upholding the defence of freedom of the citizens of England. Although the press has done a bad job in representing the judiciary, being more inclined to see them as dotty and out of touch (even more so than some journalists) there has been more emphasis on linking judges to the Establishment and privilege and by implication a sense that they are biased. This image has been given a good run during the Labour Party's efforts at governance. Indeed the treatment of the judiciary has bordered on the shabby. The attack on judges Judges remain the guardian of the freedom of the people of England and the English recognition that all should remain equal before the law is at risk when ministers of state think they can criticise openly judgements which go against their wishes. David Blunkett did this recently in a scary exposure of visceral arrogance. Jack Straw attempted to limit the role of juries with a pathetic argument as to the tiny savings that would have resulted. David Blunkett also turned down the suggestion that the jury of peers interpretation should be applied in cases of racially-motivated crimes (Lawrence case) justifying his decision on the advice he received from an un-named Home Office "advisor". All such matters are topics which should have been reviewed by judges and a lay committee representing the community conscience to determine the implications for juries. The attack on freedom More recently the Labour Government has accepted the so-called European arrest warrant, is pushing to have up to 90 days detention for terror suspects without their being able to appear before a court. This continued effort by this government demonstrate its waning fitness for office with regard to its scant regard for the importance of defending the freedom of individuals. Many judges know this and so do many members of the public. But judges face a serious dilema. There is no question that the best people to assess the pertinence and acceptability of such proposals are, based on their experience, judges. But being amongst the most independent judiciary in the world, they do not naturally take up the fight to raise questions as to why the government is stripping away such vital traditional safeguards as habeas corpus, trail by jury, assumption of innocence, the right to be heard, the right to legal advice and other essential safeguards. To do so, in the current atmosphere generated by the government, risks being painted as being politically motivated. Even worse, in a period of open season on terrorists, anything which argues for safeguards for freedom, even for terrorists, risks a shabby condemnation characterised as treason, by a government which sees fit to ignore the terrorism, by any other word, which it continues to condone in Ulster. However, this has not passed un-noticed by members of the public. Many are coming to the conclusion that the government is bindly, and somewhat brutally, pursuing a strategy of consolidation of power no matter whose feelings are eventually bruised. Constitutional fiasco But in the constitutional area this government's legacy is transforming into a fiasco. Laws are being made by Scottish and Welsh MPs which affect England but over which English MPs have no control. Differentiation in laws and regulations are being introduced between England, Wales and Scotland as a direct result of the undermining of direct representation of the people of England. The government, bent on the continuation of Labour Party power, has shown no regard or sensitivity to the injury it is inflicting on English legal traditions and above all the undermining of key aspects which defend individual freedom. Marginalisation of the community conscience In fact the target of the government, in line with European constitutional and, indeed, Scottish constitutional approaches, is to rid England of juries, thereby ridding the legal system from "interference" by the people. But it is the people who will, when this phase of wasteland politics comes to an end, need to pull English judges back into their rightful role as the independent arbiters of justice on laws to which we are all subject, including members of Parliament. We need to keep in mind the advice of the late Lord Devlin, "The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will, and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury. ....(it) is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives." Labour's power drive Unfortunately, with this current government freedom is at risk because they are too quick to judge others on their own terms, terms which to do surpass base instincts of how to imprint society with their brash collective values of swift "justice" which can be anything which will sustain and or strengthen the power of the Labour Party.