The belated response of the lord chancellor to the shameful attacks on three senior judges by the Mail, Express and Telegraph (Report, 7 November) was the bare minimum required of her by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and by her oath of office: to “defend the independence of the judiciary”. It fell far short of the forceful condemnation which she should have delivered to those who seek to undermine the crucial role of the judges as guardians of our democracy against the abuse of executive power.
The fault originates in the 2005 act itself, which robbed the office of lord chancellor of its stature at the head of the judiciary with the added authority of a cabinet minister. By relegating the office to a purely nominal adjunct to the political function of justice secretary, Tony Blair’s government (against the advice of his mentor Lord Irvine) paved the way for a succession of inadequately qualified appointees. Public appreciation of the vital role of the judges in protecting the rule of law has been diminished. This is especially sad at a time when the judiciary is probably as able and impartial as it has ever been.
Geoffrey Bindman
Bindmans LLP
• In his compelling book The Rule of Law, the late Lord Bingham concluded his justification of the role of the judiciary in exercising power to hold ministers, officials and public bodies to account with this reflection: “There are countries in the world where all judicial decisions find favour with the powers that be, but they are probably not places where any of us would wish to live.”
Prof Anthony Bradley QC
Oxford
• “We need leaders who better understand the rule of law”. This was written by Martin Kettle in the Guardian 10 years ago, 25 November 2006, and quoted by Tom Bingham in his excellent book The Rule of Law (2010). Maybe it should be compulsory reading for all MPs. The lord chancellor might find it particularly helpful.
Heather Mayall
Hove, East Sussex
• Ah, so those red-white-and-blue British patriots who fought to “take back control” are now fighting in court to gag our sovereign British parliament. Gilbert and Sullivan – even Monty Python – couldn’t have made that up.
Prof Richard Dawkins
Oxford
• Neither your news reports nor letters from readers have made mention of perhaps the most relevant text on the referendum. This is a clear statement by government on parliament’s role, found in the “Government response to the report on Referendums in the United Kingdom”, comprising a report by the House of Lords select committee on the constitution (HL Paper 99), published on 30 September 2010, replying to the committee report issued on 7 April that year.
In a letter to the committee, Mark Harper MP wrote: “I welcome the report … and, given the profile and importance of the subject, the government has considered its response carefully in light of the recent introduction of the parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill.”
In its substantive response to recommendations the government asserted: “Under the UK’s constitutional arrangements parliament must be responsible for deciding whether or not to take action in response to a referendum result.”
Yet Downing Street’s response to the high court judgment was to say: “The government is disappointed by the court’s judgment. The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by act of parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgment.”
Dr David Lowry
Stoneleigh, Surrey
• Four centuries ago England was engaged in civil war to wrest power from an autocratic king and place it in the hands of parliament. Having been arrested, Charles I was indicted in 1649, offered every opportunity to formulate a defence which he refused (as he believed himself to be above the authority of the courts), tried and found guilty of treason; the punishment for which was execution. He was not assassinated but convicted by due process.
England thus began the road to the first modern democracy, whereby the rule of law, as established by the principle of the separation of powers: the executive, parliament and the judiciary, was to prevail in the interests of protecting all citizens; a model to follow by all aspiring democracies.
England had no bloodthirsty French-style revolution. No Napoleon, Hitler or Mussolini arose in this land. Nor has extra-parliamentary action ever found traction since. To observe the country’s institutions degenerate into the tyranny of mob rule, whereby Brexiters who won a referendum by 4% feel emboldened to abuse with impunity all that disagree with them, is the most unedifying spectacle one is likely to have witnessed in this country, and profoundly disturbing.
Serena Wylde
London
• The ministerial rhetoric around Brexit is extraordinary and needs to be challenged. According to Boris Johnson, speaking in Berlin, “The will of the British people was expressed very clearly” (Report, 5 November). David Davis even said that it was the largest mandate in history because more than 17 million people voted leave. What nonsense, when over 16 million voted the other way!
Not only was the referendum purely advisory, but the majority was extremely narrow compared with the two previous UK-wide referendums, about staying in the EEC in 1975 and whether to adopt the alternative vote in 2011 – both of which produced huge two-thirds majorities in favour of the winning side. The international human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson pointed out in these pages that many countries which have referendums don’t allow change by simple majority. In some a proposal must pass by what Robertson rightly called a “very clear” majority such as two-thirds (Opinion, 28 June). Johnson’s “very clearly” is a gross exaggeration, as are similar statements by other ministers.An attempt is being made to write the narrowness of the result out of history. It must be resisted.
Prof Ron Glatter
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire
• Nigel Farage’s words on Sunday’s Andrew Marr programme came dangerously near to incitement to riot. His subsequent decision to lead a march on the supreme court must be seen as an attempt to intimidate our judges. Sadly we are now seeing a rapid and disturbing shift in the centre of gravity of British politics. Mainstream MPs who, until recently, would have fought shy of criticising normal court processes now seem to find it very easy to do so. The prime minister and lord chancellor who, again until recently, would have spoken out clearly and loudly against the kind of press headlines we have seen now seem, for whatever reason, unwilling to do so. For liberals and democrats these are disturbing times.
Rev Andrew McLuskey
Staines-upon-Thames
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
