Woolf heralds HRA as check on over-reaction to terror

It was jelly and ice cream all round this week as the Human Rights Act celebrated its first birthday.

The Independent (1 October) was somewhat muted in its celebrations, claiming that 'today's first anniversary of the coming into force of the Human Rights Act coincides with a powerful legislative backlash against civil liberties', specifically 'hastily drafted legislation to allow terrorist suspects to be detained without trial for longer than the four days presently permitted'.

The Human Rights Act itself, the paper claimed, is 'an achievement of which Cherie Booth QC, the Prime Minister's wife, is prouder than her husband', what with Tony Blair's public tendencies being - according to The Independent - 'illiberal'.The result of this is that Mr Blair is now 'leading the way in Europe and the US in proposing measures that are of dubious value in fighting terrorism, but that can do lasting damage to the principles of democracy in whose name the "war" is being waged'.Similar warnings were given a few days earlier by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who, according to The Independent (28 September), warned the government that 'it must act within the law when introducing tough measures to counteract terrorism threats'.

Saying that 'the Human Rights Act is there as a valuable protection to protect the liberty of the citizens generally and the liberty of the individual', he gently reminded ministers that 'in times of stress, the government can get matters wrong', and 'the Human Rights Act is a very useful check'.

He also stressed that 'it is one of the essential responsibilities of the judiciary to protect the unpopular individual', and appreciated that 'it is not nice to have the tabloids screaming "hang the judge", but that's the judge's duty'.The application of the Human Rights Act in such current unchartered territory is obviously something of a grey area, as The Times reported how 'top QCs said that there is no need to amend the Act because it does not stand in the way of emergency powers that are justified to protect the public' (25 September).

Seemingly disagreeing with the voices warning that the Act would be trampled underfoot in the rush to set up a police state, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, who sits on the joint Lords/Commons human rights committee, argued that 'tougher police powers to detain and interrogate suspects can be brought into force under the Act'.Current events are likely to overshadow the forthcoming publication of one of the year's most eagerly awaited texts - not the new Harry Potter installment, but Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts system, now expected later this month.

According to The Guardian, the report will recommend a 'fundamental overhaul of the jury system, to crack down on the number of people escaping jury duty and ensure that juries are more representative of the population' (26 September).

Concluding on the Human Rights Act theme, so much for last year's tabloid predictions of floodgates opening and courts being swamped with claims.The Times reported how 'solicitors were taken to task by one of their number last week for failing to make use of the Act' (25 September).

Irwin Mitchell partner Colin Ettinger told delegates at a personal injury conference that solicitors should 'rummage through their filing cabinets.

Some of your files are crawling with human rightscases and what are you doing about it?' he demanded.Victoria MacCallum