|
Magazine
CAMBRIDGE LETTER
Judicial battles
BY BILL KIRKMAN
|
A fiercely independent judiciary in the U.K. is on a collision course with the government.
|
Photo: AFP
Vindicated: Symon Hill, representative of Campaign against Arms Trade after the High Court judgement on the BAE investigation.
Relations between the British government and the courts have not been cordial in the past few days. Different judges, sitting in different courts, have produced rulings in a variety of different cases that have been critical of government actions, and seriously embarrassing for the government.
The case which has generated the most publicity is that which concerned investigation of secret payments by the arms company BAE to Saudi Arabia. The investigation was stopped by the government under the leadership of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on the grounds that there were “security reasons” for that decision.
Rule of law
Two judges in the High Court ruled that the investigation should be reopened, and should not have been stopped. Referring to pressure from Saudi Arabia to have the investigation stopped, the judges delivered a damning criticism of the government. “We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat”, they declared, adding that “no one, whether within this country or outside is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. The rule of law is nothing if it fails to constrain overweening power”.
In a different case, three judges in the Court of Appeal halted the deportation by the government of three terror suspects, Abu Qatada, who is Jordanian, and two Libyans. The decision was made on human rights grounds. The judges held that Abu Qatada, if deported, would be likely to face a trial based on evidence obtained under torture, and that the Libyans, if deported, would themselves be subject to torture.
The third case, in the High Court, concerned the equipment of British troops when on military operations (currently in Afghanistan and Iraq). The judge rejected arguments put by the Ministry of Defence, and held that sending a soldier on patrol, or into battle, with defective equipment could constitute a breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This judgment arose from a case brought by the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq from heatstroke. The coroner who inquired into the death held that it was caused by a serious failure to address his difficulties in adjusting to a different climate. The same coroner criticised the Ministry of Defence in another inquest, on a soldier killed by so-called friendly fire, who was not wearing suitable body armour, because of scarcity. In yet another case, a judicial review by the High Court ruled that all asylum seekers, including those refused refugee status but still in the U.K. because there is no safe route home for them, are entitled to free health care under the National Health Service.
All the judgments touch on highly controversial political issues. Two — the deportation case, and the provision of health care for asylum seekers — have aroused little public sympathy. Terror suspects and asylum seekers are not the subject of popular support. The judgment on the equipment of troops has aroused sympathy, for obvious reasons, enhanced by the unpopularity of the British military involvement in Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, in Afghanistan). The most controversial judgment was that on the BAE investigation, because it showed the judges’ concerns over a threat to the rule of law.
What will happen next, in all the cases, is unclear as I write this. (In its determination NOT to reopen the BAE investigation, in spite of the judgment, the government is supported by the Conservative opposition.)
Valuable aspect
Whatever happens, however, all four cases illustrate an extremely important, and very positive, aspect of British society, namely the fact that the judiciary is fiercely independent. The judges individually, and the courts in which they sit, do not hesitate to reach judgments which politicians, including those in power, dislike and indeed sometimes resent. That, surely, is a sign of a healthy society. Politicians are, inevitably, always in search of popularity, and frequently addicted to power. The reputation of judges does not, and should not, depend on popularity.
In parallel with these judicial battles in the U.K., we have witnessed, in Zimbabwe, the sad drama of contested election results in a country whose citizens have been brought to a desperate condition by a political leader determined to cling to power at all costs. In Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, the courts have little capacity to act independently.
The fact that in the U.K. they have that capacity is a strength that we should never undervalue. We may not like particular judgments. Politicians may strongly dislike them. We should be thankful that they can be made.
Bill Kirkman is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College Cambridge, U.K. Email him at: bill.kirkman@gmail.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
