PM’s conference speech ‘undermined rule of law’

Derogatory references to ‘lefty lawyers’ by the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have raised hackles in the legal profession.

In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference this week, Boris Johnston said he was ‘changing the law’ and ‘stopping 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’.

Earlier at the conference, Priti Patel promised legislation next year to stop ‘endless legal claims’ and criticised immigration lawyers in a strongly-worded section of her speech: ‘No doubt those who are well-rehearsed in how to play and profit from the broken system will lecture us on their grand theories about human rights. Those defending the broken system―the traffickers, the do-gooders, the lefty lawyers, the Labour party―they are defending the indefensible.’

Law Society president Simon Davis said the speech not only undermined the rule of law but risked leading ‘to lawyers being physically attacked for doing their job’.

Bar Council chair Amanda Pinto QC said: ‘It is shocking and troubling that our own Prime Minister condones and extends attempts to politicise and attack lawyers for simply doing their job in the public interest.

‘Lawyers―including those employed by the government itself―are absolutely vital to the running of our grossly under-funded criminal justice system. The proper application of the laws of this country is fundamental to the justice system and it is a lawyer’s task to set out the proper arguments to enable that to happen. Even the Home Secretary does not suggest that lawyers are hamstringing the criminal justice system.’

Currently, a government-appointed Independent Review of Administrative Law is considering reforms to judicial review, a means of holding public bodies accountable which has led to several Home Office policies on asylum and immigration being ruled unlawful. In a message to ministers this week, Davis said judicial review was a ‘pillar of democracy’ and should be ‘effective and accessible’. He said: ‘Judges must be free to rule on cases without fear or favour, free from political considerations and criticism and have a range of remedies at their disposal.’