Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Baroness Kennedy of Shaws

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

On the noble Baroness’s first question, I agree with the sentiments that she expressed earlier.

I will answer her second question slightly differently: I am puzzled by the hostility that some in the governing party show to the European Court of Human Rights. My understanding is that, on a weekly if not monthly basis, our Government call the European Convention on Human Rights into use to justify government arguments in individual cases. I do not understand that the Government are saying that they do not want to use the convention to their advantage anymore; it is done on a very selective basis for a small number of cases, and generally against the justice of those cases.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, all of us lawyers can tell war stories about cases that we have been involved in or that we remember, but the first test of the declaration of incompatibility happened after the introduction of the Human Rights Act, when 9/11 had happened and we too were concerned with national security. We entered into a process of arresting people—detention without trial. It was a shameful thing at that time, and the case worked its way through the courts, which said that this is not compatible not only with our respect for due process and the rule of law but with the human rights protections under our new legislation. The Supreme Court—actually it was the committee of the House of Lords at that time—in the case of A and others v Secretary of State decided that this was indeed in contravention of the Human Rights Act. It spoke about how foreign nationals in particular were being gathered together in detention. There were issues about creating hierarchies and about detention without due process. As a result, a declaration of incompatibility was made.

It is important for people to know that what happened then was that the Government of the day—it happened to be a Labour Government—respected the court’s decision. That is the concern of some of us now: there seems to be less respect for court decisions. That worries us. In the ordinary way, if our Supreme Court were to make a declaration of incompatibility, one would expect a Government to do as the Labour Government did at that time, which was to look for ways in which they could introduce law that was not discriminatory to those to whom it applied and that introduced a certain level of oversight and due process. Nobody would know that better than my colleagues on the Cross Benches who, as lawyers then, sat in special capacities to oversee that sort of legislation.

It was a very interesting moment, because it was about declarations of incompatibility and how Governments should respect courts that are saying, “This is incompatible”. It concerns us that there seems to be a rising level of disrespect for the rule of law—it is happening not just in this country but elsewhere—but we should be better than other places, because that is deeply embedded in our tradition and is so important to us.

In answer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that somehow the European Convention on Human Rights was invoked even before the Human Rights Act, in fact it took six years to take cases from start to finish to get to the European court on matters, and that is not what we wanted. That is what the Human Rights Act was all about: bringing human rights home. That is what it did, and it is something that we should all be proud of.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I took it that the noble Baroness was asking me a question from the way she started—no, do not ask again. First, I absolutely yield pre-eminence to her in anything related to war stories. On her substantive point, she is right. I was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation at the time when holding people without charge in prisons on suspicion of terrorism was declared unlawful. In 2005, the law was changed. It was changed only because of the intervention of the courts following rational and detailed argument. The country did not become a more dangerous place. It became a more lawful place, with better argument about the results. There were huge benefits from that change, but it was made only because there was a fairly complex but easily dealt with legal process.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Baroness Kennedy of Shaws

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I will say just a few words on this. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Anderson said to this extent: I am not convinced that the Government have got the proportionality of this right. I invite Ministers to reflect on what has been said—not so much on the words of the draft amendments but to try to achieve something that is more acceptably proportionate to those of us who have a reasonable amount of knowledge of these issues and are concerned that the law should not go too far.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in what he said about the wide nature of what is suggested in the clause. Unlike the two previous speakers, my experience in this field is by acting in cases. I have acted for family members such as wives on a number of different occasions, and it is important that we maintain the trust of families and communities. Drawing legislation too widely will in many ways reduce the effectiveness of the state in seeking to deal with terrorism.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was absolutely right to say that we have to be mindful of the parameters of this. Academics who have analysed what has taken place in the past and what is and is not effective have been our advisers on what is likely to work. So I hope that the Government will listen, look again and agree that Amendment 39 might be an appropriate way of restricting these powers.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Baroness Kennedy of Shaws

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I agree with my legal colleagues in this House about the need for gisting as a step towards creating greater fairness. In my view, there has to be an obligation to disclose because the detainees in these cases—I have acted in them—are deeply disadvantaged. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has described powerfully the bewilderment and disappointment in detainees when an order is made against them, but they have not understood the case against them. I shall give an example because sometimes that helps us to root our understanding of why something might matter.

I took a case where a young man was to be deported on the grounds of concerns about national security. The gist of the case against him suggested that he had been present at a meeting in a house he shared with many other students at which discussions were held that were of concern to the authorities. Because the gist of the case was offered to us, it was possible to show that at the time the meeting took place the young man had been using a computer that was linked to the university in order to work on his thesis. The interactivity showed that he had been involved in quite complex, difficult work on his computer, which meant that he could not have been participating in and party to the meeting taking place in the house. That was one of the features of the case that made a real difference, but we would not have known about it if the gist had not been given to us. The force of something can only be brought home to those not involved in these cases by the use of a real example. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described people sitting in the court and being mystified by the process. That drives home just how unacceptable it can be.

I strongly urge that we do this least thing in trying to address the concerns about the whole business of closed material proceedings.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, perhaps I may take a few moments to make four short points in support of Amendment 62, tabled in the name of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Gisting presents great advantages, above all of which, in a headline, is the advantage of fairness. First, it compels the Government’s advocates to focus on the real reasons for pursuing their particular point. Using the very good example cited by the noble Baroness, it enables them to see where they are wrong because an answer can be given if the gisting occurs. Secondly, it shortens the proceedings. If the gist is given, there have been quite a number of cases where the individual has seen that it is not worth opposing the application because he knows perfectly well where he was or what activity he was engaged in at a particular time. Thirdly, it is a fair process, or at least it is as close to a fair process as we are going to be able to achieve when dealing with national security. My fourth reason for supporting Amendment 62 relates to the other words in it which do not deal with gisting of itself. It concerns the ability,

“to enable the excluded party to give effective instructions to his legal representative and special advocate”.

I know that this is going to arise a little later too. To improve the procedure for arrangements to be made under the rules of court, it is absolutely essential for the individual to be able to give instructions to special advocates just as they can give instructions to their own counsel.

I think that this three-line amendment covers a multiplicity of issues and should be supported. I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will see the sense of it.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lord Carlile of Berriew and Baroness Kennedy of Shaws

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. There is no greater crime than for a barrister to interrupt a judge mid-speech, so I am covered in a white shroud as I appear before him.

I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in this amendment, and in the other amendments. They tend to flush out a rather important question: is it the intention that this is a continuation of the erosion of legal aid, and that the idea of turning it back is never to be considered? Are we talking about the withering on the vine of legal aid? If so, you would not have in mind the opportunity of the Lord Chancellor to reinstate legal aid or to put it back in place as a result of evidence of shortcomings. If the intention is simply to reduce legal aid inexorably, of course you would not bother having that bit as part of the powers of the Lord Chancellor.

The piece of law to which I want to speak is that of unintended consequences. We know that it is only in the experience of the absence of legal aid that we will see its impact. I want to reinforce what others have said, that it will be in the sucking of the sweetie that one will be able to work out whether the consequences are so serious that the Lord Chancellor might want to reinstate legal aid or to put it into a place where it had not previously been. I strongly urge the Minister to look again at this and to have that reciprocal part of the power so that it will be possible to put legal aid in place, or to reinstate it where it has been removed.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Like other noble Lords, I wish to support what has been said by all speakers so far in this short debate. We are talking not merely about reinstatement of legal aid but about adding to legal aid issues that have not yet been considered. In the first debate this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to his experience, which I share. When I and many others in this House started practising the law, there were many things that we had not envisaged that we now take to be absolutely basic rights. For example, equalities legislation, the equality of women and the right to equal pay in the workplace for equal work had barely started when I was called to the Bar in 1970. We must, therefore, keep the door open for such issues to be added to legal aid.

The final point is a question to my noble friend the Minister. Why are the Government opposed to addition or reinstatement? The only informed speculation, if I can call it that, which I have heard on the reasons for this provision is that Ministers feel that they would avoid being lobbied by outside interest groups if this were a one-way-only provision. Surely being lobbied is something that we expect and welcome in political life in this country, and Ministers of the Crown and their officials should be robust enough to resist if the lobbying lacks merit. If the Minister is to resist the spirit of the amendments this afternoon, the House would be grateful for a coherent set of reasons why.