The government's insistence on persisting with internment without trial is a challenge for the Human Rights Act, writes Stephen Grosz


Every solicitor has a duty to uphold the rule of law and promote respect for human rights. The Law Society, as their representative, must ensure that this duty is carried out. Right now, these principles are in need of particular attention.


In the wake of the Belmarsh judgment, the Human Rights Act (HRA) faces its greatest challenges from the government that introduced it. In that ruling, the Law Lords declared that intern-ment of foreign terrorist suspects without trial violates convention rights. The HRA does not empower courts to strike down statutes, only to declare them incompatible. Yet logic, and respect for the rule of law, oblige the government and Parliament to amend legislation to make it convention-compliant. This structure accords supremacy not to any particular branch of government but to the rights that the HRA guarantees.


Immediately after the decision, ministers were defiant - the Lords were wrong, they said; internment must stay. Together with other human rights organisations, the Law Society is now pressing the government to accept the judgment and end internment.


Beyond Belmarsh, the Queen's Speech contains several measures with important human rights implications: bills on identity cards, further anti-terrorism powers, anti-social behaviour orders, incitement to religious hatred, the establishment of a commission for equalities and human rights. The Law Society needs to be ready to express its views on these matters. Its voice carries the authority of the profession it represents, and its representatives are regularly called to give evidence to select committees. It should also make an important contribution to public debate on human rights issues and to the promotion of a human rights culture going beyond litigation.


The Law Society has been contributing to the debate. It has produced evidence and made its position clear on such issues as internment without trial, whether in Guantanamo Bay or in the UK itself. The Society is also represented on the forum that meets Department for Constitutional Affairs minister David Lammy twice-yearly to discuss human rights issues.


The Law Society's work in relation to human rights overseas is carried out by its international human rights committee. At home, human rights are the responsibility of specialist committees dealing with, for example, access to justice, criminal law, immigration, mental health or children's issues. But some important matters do not fall squarely within any of these areas. In dealing with them, Chancery Lane staff members have worked informally with a small number of practitioners whose interest is general human rights matters rather than a specialist discipline.


The Law Society has established a reference group to provide expertise and support on domestic human rights issues. The seven-member group will provide expert input where needed into Law Society papers, and will identify human rights issues where it considers the Society should be more active. It expects to co-operate with other Law Society committees on human rights, providing specialist human rights input. To this end, I have written to invite all committee chairs and policy advisers to call on us where they consider that we could contribute to their work.


At a time when liberties are under attack in the name of the war on terrorism, it is vital that the voice of lawyers be heard loud and clear, showing that protection of our rights is not a sectional interest but one that is the central concern of our profession. We hope that our group will help carry this message both to the profession and to the public at large.


Solicitor Stephen Grosz is chairman of the Law Society's domestic human rights reference group