Without fear or favour
I am thinking about that brief period in Russia at the end of the 20th Century and before Vladimir Putin came to power, when I, perhaps naively, really thought that the country could develop into a functioning democracy after centuries of totalitarian rule of one kind or another.
My expectations of this were reinforced by all the thoroughly decent ordinary Russian people I came across in my line of work. One particular project stands out: on invitation from the head of the Russian judiciary, in the middle of the 1990s, my little consultancy arranged a study trip to the UK for twelve top judges from Moscow and the regions, to explore the judicial system in England and Wales.
Eleven men and one woman arrived in London, accompanied by the bodyguard to the Head of the Supreme Court of Russia, who led the delegation. Two highly packed weeks followed, with talks, meetings with English judges, tea with the Lord Chief Justice and visits to our court system, from magistrates’ courts to the Old Bailey, and on to the Royal Courts of Justice. The Russian judges were highly educated, enquiring and courteous, but the one aspect of their visit that really astounded them was learning that our judges were free to make judgements independently, without fear or favour.
We know now that back in Russia those halcyon moments were short lived, and the legal system is back on the track of received instructions from above rather than free thinking. But what got me remembering that study visit all those years ago was reading about some comments made by the brilliant Helena Kennedy KC. She is president of council at the law reform and human rights charity Justice as it prepares to publish a report on threats to the rule of law. The organisation identifies as one of these threats ‘disparagement of lawyers and judges’.
Kennedy runs the Institute of Human Rights for the International Bar Association and notes that ‘one of the things I am seeing all the time is our lawyers under attack under authoritarian regimes. The first thing that authoritarians do is they go after judges that make decisions that they don’t like.’ She gives examples of such instances in Turkey and Iran, but also notes the increased number of disparaging comments about lawyers here in the UK.
Comments such as ‘lefty lawyers’ or ‘activist lawyer’ are pejorative, fundamentally meaningless and most importantly, wrong. The right-wing press and their Tory puppets feel free to parrot this stuff without considering the consequences. If we don’t respect the rule of law and those professionals whose job it is to uphold it then we shouldn’t be surprised at the results. My father’s job was to consider appeals made by asylum seekers who had been refused their application by the Home Office. He certainly wasn’t a ‘lefty’, and would have been horrified if it had been suggested that his political or personal persuasion was influencing his legal judgments.
The report by Justice says the government must safeguard judicial independence and the legal profession and reject the use of inflammatory language against them. Tell that to Suella Braverman and Priti Patel, and make sure the Daily Mail gets the message too. I mean, they don’t want us to get like Russia, or do they?
An excellent article raising serious issues . I’m rather in awe of your study trip, Barbara!
It had some very funny moments which I will relate to you when we next meet!