What has just happened?
In a video published on the 27th August, the Home Office dangerously referred to immigration lawyers, who provide impartial legal advice to migrants, as “activist lawyers”.[1] Captioning an animation of deportation flights leaving the UK, the message relayed by the Home Office read that such “activist lawyers” were delaying the removal of illegal migrants.
Spreading the concerning implication that immigration lawyers act with political motivation, the Law Society of England and Wales was quick to condemn the Home Office’s highly unsafe statement. In a press release published by the Society, President Simon Davis chastised the home office for its “attacks on the integrity of the legal profession”[2], which he deemed to undermine the fundamental rule of law.[3]
What does this mean?
Elucidated by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, it is paramount in a democracy that “individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures”, and, crucially, “of each other”[4]. So that those who appear before them can be confident that their circumstances are to be judged “fairly and in accordance with the law”.[5]
The implication raised by the Home Office’s statement therefore dangerously undermines this, in suggesting that immigration lawyers are partial, and identify with their clients’ causes. The condemnation by the Law Society stands as a pivotal manifestation of legal resistance against the frivolities of politics. In issuing the statement, the Law Society presents with intense conviction that the legal system is, and must always be, entirely independent.
As indicated innumerably throughout history,[6] societies which do not provide legal professionals with independence, inescapably suffer in the creation of a society “that becomes less safe, less stable, and less fair”.[7] Circumventing the integration of our political and legal systems, the separation of powers[8] provides crucial protection to lawyers and judges, in restricting the prospects of political intimidation or hindrance, when carrying out their professional duties.
In the menacing collation of immigration lawyers with political agenda, the Home Office has teetered dubiously on the edge of a legal and moral mutiny. In dangerously exacerbating an already spreading antipathy toward immigration policy, the Home Office has begun blurring the lines between that which is law, and that which it deems law ‘ought to be’.[9]
How does this impact the legal sector?
Primarily, this statement renders the sector vulnerable to attack and unjust scrutiny. The media has interminably demonstrated its willingness to slander the legal profession where legal process and precedent do not ‘suit’ current (oftentimes fleeting) political ‘fashions’.[10]
Epitomised in 2016, the court’s decision not to invoke Article 50[11] and trigger Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, rendered their vilification as “enemies of the people”.[12]Today one can see a reflection of the dangerous accusation made in 2016: that objective legal professionals fraternise with personal opinion and politics, rather than following statutory rules and principles, inducing grave implications of illegitimacy.
Following a complaint, the video has since been deleted from Twitter by the Home Office, with the Permanent Secretary acknowledging this error in an admission that the video “should not have been used on an official government channel”.[13] Nonetheless, this choice of terminology will doubtless have contributed to the spread of an unsafe attitude toward legal professions and the immigration laws to which they belong.[14] As a pertinent issue in modern society, with the ever- souring attitudes toward immigration policies[15], it is crucial that misleading, misinformed and outright dangerous statements such as this, are indeed condemned.
The now-deleted video caused great controversy upon release. The labelling ‘activist lawyers’ is both unsubstantiated and dangerous to those in the legal profession who can only seek to uphold the law in the best possible way for their client.
Ultimately, the Home Office’s statement is likely to symbolise a coming threat of regressive immigration policy, hanging ominously overhead among dark winter clouds.
Written by Holly Crowder
Assessing Firms
#FaraniTaylor #KingsleyNapley #CoffinMewLLP #TaylorRose #Sills&BetteridgeLLP #WhitroseBlackmansSolicitorsLLP #Ashmans
References:
[1] The Law Society, Press Release ‘Attacks on the legal profession undermine the rule of law’ (27th August 2020) <https://twitter.com/TheLawSociety/status/1298930658698559488> Accessed 27th August 2020.
[2] ibid
[3] ‘What is the Rule of Law’ United Nations and the Rule of Law <https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law/> Accessed 1st September 2020.
[4] Courts and Tribunals Judiciary ‘Independence’ <https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/> Accessed 28th August 2020.
[5] Ibid.
[6] See inter alia, the ‘Sondergericht’ (The Nazi ‘Special Court’), and the Nazification of the Amstgerichte (Official Courts of ‘ordinary jurisdiction’).
[7] The Law Society (n 1).
[8] ‘The Separation of Powers’ Britannica Encyclopaedia <https://www.britannica.com/topic/separation-of-powers> Accessed 15th September 2020.
[9] As defined by Hart as the distinction between the role of the judiciary, and that of the legislature.
[10] See for example, Rudgard, O. ‘Judges under ‘intolerable pressure’ from social media, says new Lord Chief Justice’ The Telegraph (21st November 2017).
[11] Treaty of the European Union
[12] James Slack, ‘Enemies of the People: Fury over ‘out of touch’ judges who defied 17.4m Brexit voters and could trigger constitutional crisis’ Daily Mail (Friday 4th November 2016)
[13] Jamie Grierson, ‘Home Office wrong to refer to ‘activist lawyers’, top official admits’ The Guardian (27th August 2020)
[14] Approximately 1.5 million people viewed the tweet whilst live.
[15] Peter Walker, ‘Priti Patel looked at idea of sending asylum seekers to South Atlantic’ The Guardian (30th September 2020)
Disclaimer: This article (and any information accessed through links in this article) is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.