Is accusing “leftie lawyers” of frustrating government attempts to enforce immigration law really tantamount to incitement to violence?
A letter signed by no fewer than 800 members of the legal profession has accused the prime minister and home secretary of “hostility” towards lawyers, thus undermining the rule of law and endangering the personal safety of people working for the justice system. The signatories, who include 11 former judges, more than 80 QCs and hundreds of other lawyers, are referring to a series of examples.
In August the Home Office put out a video attacking “activist lawyers” for frustrating its efforts to deport people with no right to remain in the UK. It withdrew the clip after strong criticism. Last week a man appeared in court charged with preparing a racist and terrorist attack on a firm of immigration lawyers in London. After this alleged attack, early last month, lawyers had asked the home secretary, Priti Patel, to tone down her rhetoric. She did not.
Addressing the Tory party conference this month she claimed that among those defending the “indefensible” and “broken” immigration appeals system were “do-gooders” and “leftie lawyers”, language echoed by Boris Johnson in his own conference speech.
Patel and Johnson are hardly the first politicians to have attacked lawyers and been attacked in turn for undermining the rule of law. The Conservative and Labour former home secretaries, Michael Howard and David Blunkett, ran running battles against the judges whom they accused of frustrating government policy.
There is a legitimate argument that ministerial attacks on lawyers are a dangerous attack on the independence of the profession. It’s also fair to criticise Patel and Johnson for using intemperate and generalised language. Most immigration lawyers merely do their best for their clients by seeking every possible avenue provided for them by the law. Indeed, the reason such lawyers are able to frustrate government policy is because the laws on the statute book provide them with the opportunities to do so, or because of procedural errors made by the Home Office itself.
Rather than attack the lawyers for doing their job, it would surely be more appropriate for the home secretary to put her own house in order and for parliament to change the laws that are considered unhelpful. Otherwise, attacking “leftie lawyers” can be seen merely as a populist insult enabling these politicians to pander to public outrage while failing to take the necessary measures.
Nevertheless, the 800 lawyers themselves may have gone too far in their own language. The claim that certain opinions incite hatred of such intensity that they may lead to violence is a dangerously generalised assumption of cause and effect. The claim is being used over a variety of issues, risking a chilling effect on legitimate comment.
After the murder of the Remain-supporting Labour MP Jo Cox one week before the 2016 EU referendum, by an attacker shouting “This is for Britain”, Brexiteers were preposterously accused of having created the conditions for Cox’s murder and endangering the lives of other Remain supporters.
Similarly, criticism of Islam or illegal immigration provokes regular claims of inciting racist or far-right attacks. But such attacks may be inspired by belief in Nazi ideology, racial prejudice, mental illness, drug use or any combination of the above.
Moreover, there’s a legitimate issue behind the outbursts by Patel and Johnson. In a ruling last week upholding the right for migrants to have access to lawyers, the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, stated: “It is a matter of regret that a minority of lawyers have lent their professional weight and support to vexatious representations and abusive late [immigration] legal challenges.”
Several immigration law firms report increasing threats to their staff. But given the significant public anger about illegal immigration, isn’t it more reasonable to conclude that this is what propels certain unhinged individuals to make these threats?
These occur whenever emotions boil over. Senior bishops who criticised Dominic Cummings’s breach of the lockdown travel rules said they received death threats from people saying “stay out of politics or we’ll kill you”. Last year Dame Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, said threats to MPs had risen significantly reflecting “polarised opinions” over Brexit. Robert Jenrick, the communities secretary, has been given protection from counterterrorism police after threats to burn down his home over his support for a Holocaust memorial to be built near the Houses of Parliament.
Yet surely no one suggests that there shouldn’t have been any criticism of Cummings or the Holocaust memorial proposal, or that the intense controversy over Brexit should somehow have been stifled. And if either Patel or Johnson were to be attacked by some crazed person shouting “Respect the rule of law!”, would anyone suggest these 800 lawyers bore some responsibility — or would that be viewed, correctly, as disgracefully unfair?
It’s true that society has become dangerously volatile. Social media has helped create an atmosphere of intimidation and impulsive rage. So there’s a need to use language that is proportionate and reasonable to lower the temperature. But that applies not just to politicians who attack lawyers but to the lawyers who attack them back too.
