LETTER : Judges guard our freedoms

Paul Roberts
Thursday 18 April 1996 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Baiting judges about their social and educational backgrounds is diverting sport (though hardly more challenging than shooting fish in a barrel) but David Walker ("Who do these guys think they are?", 17 April) is wide of the mark in targeting judicial activism as a threat to democracy.

"Political" decisions by the courts are nothing new. As part of the "checks and balances" in our division of state power, judges are not only permitted but positively bound to make political decisions. When judges intervene in the activities of government to ensure that ministers do not exceed the powers entrusted to them by Parliament they act as the servants, not the usurpers, of democracy. Parliament is the elected representative of the people and the laws its makes bind government ministers just as they bind everyone else.

It is particularly important to be clear about these constitutional fundamentals when the government of the day evinces scant regard for the law. The Major administration's attitude towards legality lurches from cynical opportunism (when foreigners won't buy our beef) to outright contempt (in the face of censure from the European Court of Human Rights). There is no written constitutional guarantee of fundamental human rights in the United Kingdom. The only thing that stands between the individual and oppression in the name of crude majoritarianism is the law, as applied and developed by the judges.

Paul Roberts

Department of Law

University of Nottingham

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in