Human Rights Act may 'hamper fight against terrorists'

With the events of last Tuesday still dominating headlines, legal stories understandably took a back seat.

One that did make the papers was the old tabloid favourite, asylum seekers - specifically, the decision earlier this month that the detention of asylum seekers in Oakington Detention Centre was unlawful under the Human Rights Act (see Lawyer in the News, below).The Daily Mail reported that Home Secretary David Blunkett had 'criticised human rights lawyers' for 'seeking multi-million pound payouts for those held in detention centres', and by doing so 'fuelling racial tension' (15 September).

Lawyers for the refugees, who were apparently being 'held in good conditions with a gym, library and satellite television', were accused by Mr Blunkett of undermining human rights by 'being so gung-ho, and so extreme in one direction that they push the rest of the population in another'.The Daily Mail will doubtless welcome the story appearing in this week's Sunday Telegraph (16 September), which claims that 'the government is considering an embarrassing retreat on one of its most controversial pieces of flagship legislation, the Human Rights Act'.

The Act, introduced in a blaze of publicity last October, has apparently 'taken too much power away from Parliament, just as critics predicted...

and placed it in the hands of the courts and judiciary'.The 'controversial' legislation has 'generated widespread anger', specifically when it was 'exploited to gain the early release of the killers of James Bulger', the report said.

There are apparently fears that it 'could shackle attempts to push through tough measures to counter terrorism in the wake of Tuesday's attack on the World Trade Centre'.

The paper also suggested that Prime Minister Tony Blair may have a personal reluctance to amend the Act, seeing as 'his wife Cherie Booth, who is a barrister, promptly co-founded the Matrix chambers which specialise in cases brought under the Act'.To another form of discrimination, and The Guardian reported on new rules in employment tribunals where women who suffer discrimination at work 'will see their chances of winning compensation rise dramatically' when rules governing employment tribunals come into force next month (15 September).

From 12 October, the burden of proof will shift to employers, meaning that rather than women having to prove that companies are guilty, the companies will have to prove that 'in all probability they are innocent of the charges'.This provoked mixed reactions, with Ruth Lea, policy director of the Institute of Directors, warning that 'employers will be forced by the new rules to hire employees who give the impression that causing trouble is the last thing on their mind'.On a positive note, the renowned employment solicitor Janet Gaymer was the focus of attention in The Times this week (18 September) as she was highlighted in an article which forecast that 'a famously male-orientated profession may be changing'.Ms Gaymer, of Simmons & Simmons, has become the first senior partner of a City top ten firm.

She told the newspaper that there was no point in trying to be one of the boys.

'There were women who became successful by doing what the guys did, going to clubs and bars, and hanging out with the boys.

Quite frankly, I don't need to go out to see naked women.

I can do that every morning in the shower.'Victoria MacCallum