Blunkett slated as a 'threat' after anti-terror proposals

Home Secretary David Blunkett was the man of the moment last week, with his strict anti-terror proposals inviting criticism from almost all sections of the media.

The Telegraph launched a scathing attack on 'the biggest threat to our legal system' - namely, a home secretary who 'seems to misunderstand the Human Rights Act' and sees the judiciary as 'an enemy to be cowed' (13 November).

Mr Blunkett's speech last week, in which he told judges not to use the Human Rights Act to overrule the House of Commons, apparently demonstrates that 'the home secretary has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legal system works - of course laws are made by Parliament, and they must then be interpreted by judges'.However, elsewhere in The Telegraph attitudes were somewhat more positive towards Mr Blunkett, with political columnist Rachel Sylvester describing the 'loyal' and 'canny' Blunkett as 'one of the sharpest operators in government', and moreover one who is apparently heading towards a major showdown with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, said to be 'apoplectic with rage' about his colleague's less than favourable comments about the legal profession (15 November) Presumably that's Lord Irvine's domain.Unfavourable views of the legal system seem to be the flavour of the month, as even glossy women's magazine Eve devoted three pages to examining the 'sorry' state of the jury system (November issue).Of the one in three people called for jury service who show up, 'some arrive nursing hangovers, some are resentful at being there, and some just take against the defendant' according to the article, which also quotes an eminent QC who says that 'too many jurors come from the bottom of the aquarium'.

Despite the system's 'obvious failures', the conclusion was that 'juries get it right most of the time' - although, as perhaps to be expected of a women's magazine, it calls for jurors to be given 'the emotional, actual and legal support they need'.Another hornets' nest that David Blunkett seems happy to stride into is the always controversial area of blasphemy.

Last week he signalled that he 'intended to repeal Britain's ancient laws against blasphemy' (The Independent, 15 November).

Supporters of abolishing the laws, which have not been used since 1977, claim that 'the legal definition of blasphemy is discriminatory because it protects only Christianity, and possibly only the Church ofEngland'.

The home secretary argued that 'after all this time, surely the Church of England can stick up for itself'.And finally, Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith appears to be rivalling David Blunkett for national newspaper coverage this week, with both The Times and The Telegraph running stories on Monday with the purpose of flagging up interviews with him on their respective law pages the following day.

One imagines a classic Whitehall farce, with The Times reporter being hurried out of one door, while The Telegraph's is ushered through another.The Times said that Lord Goldsmith 'signalled his backing for reforms to allow juries to see relevant evidence of previous criminal acts by defendants', while The Telegraph went for a smaller article on government plans, announced by the Attorney-General, to allow prosecutors and not police to decide the charges defendants should face.Victoria MacCallum