Now is the time for manifestos. Not to be outdone, the Law Society has issued its own. Strictly non-party political of course, but nevertheless aimed fairly and squarely at the current hustings. The Society recognises that: “The party in government following the general election will face a hostile and difficult environment. In facing that challenge, it must not forget the basic needs for justice and the rule of law. The Law Society calls on all political parties to publicly support…four principles in their campaigning, policy development and – if elected – their actions over the next Parliament”.

The four principles are that Government will: uphold the rule of law by ensuring meaningful access to justice for all; will properly defend the rights of the people; will work for good governance and better law-making; and will support and encourage a strong and independent legal services sector for the benefit of all. There is no shortage of specifics. The Law Society calls on all parties to commit to maintaining legal aid eligibility at current levels; supporting the principles enshrined in the Human Rights Act; and the maintenance of the right to trial by jury. Among other matters it calls for support of the pivotal role of the defence solicitor in protecting the rights of the defendant and ensuring that the criminal justice process actually works on the ground; a review of the current focus on ‘out of court disposals’; and support for an open coroners system in which all inquests are held in public. In related matters the Law Society calls for the tax year to operate on a calendar basis (1 January – 31 December), with a self-assessment deadline of 30 September; applying fixed dates for the Pre-Budget Report and the Budget; and a debate about the future of Home Information Packs.

The manifesto states that: “In recent years, the UK criminal justice system has been subject to a constant barrage of new legislation and offences. A more cautious and structured approach to extending and reforming criminal law is required to prevent the criminal justice system being overwhelmed and police forces becoming overstretched by a constantly changing criminal code”. Such laws and initiatives have included limiting the costs recovered by acquitted defendants to the equivalent legal aid rates; means testing for legal aid funding in the crown court; the growth in the use of control orders in terrorism cases; and virtual courts, where defendants may not have face to face access to a defence lawyer.

In their joint introduction to the manifesto, Robert Heslett, President, and Desmond Hudson, Chief Executive, state that: “It is important that, in the rough and tumble of an election campaign, such principles are not forgotten. The Law Society, as the voice of the largest part of the legal sector, has a unique perspective on the issues affecting justice and the fabric of society. The Society presents this manifesto as its contribution to the public policy debate in the lead up to the general election of 2010”. The full text of the manifesto can be found at:

 http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/new/documents/2010/manifesto2010.pdf

Over the past decade there has been a wholesale removal of rights that were apparently protected by the Human Rights Act and set down nearly 800 years ago in Magna Carta. The liberties that were assumed to be guaranteed by British culture have been compromised, as have constitutional safeguards that were once considered beyond the reach of a democratically elected legislature. The attack has been as broad as it is deep, with over 25 Acts of Parliament and some 50 individual measures involved so far.

That is the conclusion of “What We’ve Lost”, a report by the UCL Student Human Rights Programme, compiled for the Convention on Modern Liberty. This conclusion is backed by many examples. The presumption of innocence and the principle that every defendant has the right to be tried by a jury have been weakened by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The important distinction between standard of proof for criminal and civil law was eroded with the introduction of ASBOs. The right to silence was further eroded by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. Under the same Act an individual and his lawyers may be barred from court proceedings. Freedom to communicate in private has been effectively extinguished by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Under the Identity Cards Act 2006 and the Children Act 2004 a record of all the important transactions in a person’s life will be created by electronic verification. The rights to freedom of assembly and demonstration have been eroded by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Jack Straw’s Coroners and Justice Bill will end the independence of coroners, who until now have been able to investigate the cause of suspicious or uncertain deaths and criticise government departments and agencies. And so on.

In “The Assault on Liberty”, a ‘radical polemic on the state of the nation’, Dominic Raab, Chief of Staff to the Shadow Home Secretary, asks whether we can really defend our freedom by sacrificing it. “In the last ten years the government has launched an unprecedented assault on our civil liberties”. Writing in the ‘Guardian’, Timothy Garton Ash maintains that Britain has more CCTV, a larger DNA base and more police powers and email snooping than any comparable liberal democracy, coupled with a bungling bureaucracy that keeps losing vital information. He asks “how can a government of intelligent and often liberal-minded persons behave so illiberally, arrogantly and stupidly?” He sees hope in a three pronged fightback, led by judges and lawyers, the House of Lords Constitution Committee (see ‘Big Brother parts 1 & 2’, posted here on 10 February) and a rainbow coalition, many of whom have joined together to launch the Convention on Modern Liberty.

The full text of the “What We’ve Lost” report is at:- http://www.uclshrp.com/images/uploads/pdf/Abolition_of_Freedom_Act_2009.pdf