Rebels round on Act

Last week's Gazette-sponsored Law Society debate stirred some controversy over the human rights act.

while the legislation has not sparked the expected flood of claims, some maintain that it is undemocratic.

Anne Mizzi reports

Two months into the new era of human rights law and so far the legal system has not collapsed.

But that could still happen.

Last week, the Gazette sponsored a Law Society debate on whether the Human Rights Act 1998 will plunge the profession into chaos or whether it is an important safeguard of civil liberties.In an initial show of hands, the 100-strong audience supported the Act, with only six people condemning it as a burden.

By the end, the support for the motion was even higher, with the 'burden' voters reduced to three.Although they were fighting a losing battle, Conservative MP Gerald Howarth, Brighton criminal law specialist solicitor Steve Wedd and Professor John Griffiths, author of The Politics of the Judiciary, argued their corner valiantly.Mr Howarth, a member of the home affairs select committee, argued that the Act is a recipe for chaos.

He appealed for the Act to be read in the context of the origin of the European Convention on Human Rights.

'It is clear that the purpose of the convention is to give effect to the concerns as to how to prevent those ghastly horror stories from continental Europe.

It wasn't to deal with the trivial cases that are now coming before us.'This is not a mirror image convention.

It is essentially a free- standing convention and bill of rights of the UK, not passed before the people in the last election.

We are the forum where these issues should be debated.'He also suggested that the Act creates an uncertain legal environment for businesses and that the shift in power from Parliament to unelected judges and courts is undemocratic.Professor Griffiths went further.

'What we have here is an open conspiracy between the executive and the judiciary to share power,' he declared.He said the 'new epiphany' between the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and senior law lords was behind the warning that outrageous human rights claims will not be tolerated.'I call these threats,' he said.

'The judiciary is being turned into nothing less than a political institution.' He called for the 'partnership' between the judiciary and the government to be stopped: 'It's up to us to make sure it doesn't happen.' Mr Wedd said the Act is unnecessary: 'We live in a fair society.

I don't think it's something we need.

They will just bury the bodies deeper.' And he also set the cat among the pigeons by declaring: 'The Human Rights Act provides a vehicle for those poor lawyers to take poor cases.' Home Office minister Mike O'Brien disagreed.

'This is a serious piece of legislation,' he said.

Mr O'Brien pointed out that there was no flood of claims as predicted in the press.

The number of Crown Court cases decreased in a year, from 24,104 to 23,603, and there was a 2.3% increase in the legal aid budget.But he did concede that 'some lawyers will try it on'.

'People may set up a silly argument but when the judges look at it they will make sensible decisions.'Stephen Grosz, a partner at London-based civil liberties law firm Bindman & Partners, said implementation so far has been 'fairly smooth'.

He said: 'Judges have not run amok.

Any new legislation will require a period of bedding in.

Lawyers will remember the difficulties with sex and race discrimination legislation when they were first implemented.

But now those pieces of legislation are fully accepted.' He argued that the Act is a minimum protection, and that the question had moved on.

He said: 'It isn't creating any new rights, it simply makes the rights enforceable here.' The question now is how best to enforce the convention.

And he concluded: 'Any court system is used to dealing with abusive actions.' Rabinder Singh, a barrister at specialist human rights chambers Matrix, joked: 'I've been accused so often this year of being a gold digger, so from now on I'm going to do something less well paid - commercial law.'He said the Act is not radical and that it is about protecting minorities.

'This is a part of our heritage.

At last we have a bill of rights,' he said.But Mr Howarth said this is undemocratic: 'This Act has given the UK a bill of rights and yet no one has had an opportunity to vote for it.

I want the UK Parliament to be the body that secures rights for our people, not the European Union.'Mr O'Brien countered: 'Incorporation of the convention into UK law was set out in the Labour Party manifesto at the last general election.

We said then that we wanted to bring these rights home and people had an opportunity to vote on that manifesto.'Mr Howarth stuck to his guns: 'The problem is that there is a great difficulty in defining certain liberties.

And Parliament should be the arbiter of where the lines are drawn - not the judges.' These arguments did not convince the audience to switch sides.

'I have never before been booed offstage.

It's a novelty,' said Mr Wedd later.