The Human Rights Act 1998 is ‘a vital part of the foundation of our fight against terrorism’, the president of the Supreme Court has declared in an outspoken defence of the act.

Setting out a series of recent cases in which government anti-terrorism measures have been ruled unlawful by the House of Lords or Supreme Court, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers noted that the Human Rights Act and the judges who apply it have been attacked by the media.

In a speech last week, the former lord chief justice said that senior judges were criticised by Charles Clarke when he was home secretary, because, in Clarke’s words, ‘the judiciary bear not the slightest responsibility for protecting the public and sometimes seem utterly unaware of the implications of their decisions for our society’.

Defending the judges, Phillips told an audience at Gresham College that ‘Charles Clarke failed to appreciate that it is the duty of the judiciary to apply the laws that have been enacted by parliament. It was parliament that decreed that judges should apply the Human Rights Convention.’

Phillips added: ‘The enactment of the Human Rights Act by the previous administration was an outstanding contribution to the upholding of the rule of law in this country and one for which it deserves great credit.’

Phillips said that if immigrants were not fairly treated in the UK, ‘their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support terrorists’.

He added: ‘The Human Rights Act is not merely their safeguard. It is a vital part of the foundation of our fight against terrorism.’