Dean rebuts “not-very-contrite” Home Office response
The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates has described as “not very contrite” a letter from a Home Office minister responding to his plea for the Government to end its generalised attacks on the legal profession.
Roddy Dunlop QC wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 October deprecating remarks by the Prime Minister and Home Secretary about “lefty lawyers” or “activist lawyers” who were “hamstringing the justice system”. He described it as “unconscionable” for members of the Government to decry in this way the actions of professionals who were doing their duty and were not at liberty to do otherwise.
A reply was received dated 3 December, from Chris Philp MP, Minister for Immigration Compliance and the Courts. Apologising for the delay, Mr Philp accepted the “vital role”, and the professionalism, of the legal profession. But his letter continued: “However, this does not mean the legal profession should be immune from criticism... The Government has often seen its attempts to effect entirely legal and legitimate returns [of people due to be deported] frustrated by last minute challenges that have been unfounded. It is those who, from time to time, take advantage of their position and abuse the court process by playing politics through the claims who form the basis of our criticism”.
Replying in turn to what he described on Twitter as “the not-very-contrite Home Office letter”, Mr Dunlop said he had never suggested that the legal profession should be immune from criticism. He continued: “I find, with great respect, much difficulty in the concept of 'legitimate and legal returns' being frustrated by unfounded challenges. If the challenge is unfounded, it will fail. If the challenge succeeds, ex hypothesi it was not unfounded.”
Mr Philp's comments about lawyers “taking advantage of their position” and “playing politics” were serious allegations involving an abuse of process and acting in a way incompatible with lawyers' duties to the court.
“Where there has been an abuse of process, the court will so find”, Mr Dunlop stated. “If the court does not so find, that will be because there has been no abuse. It is, I would respectfully suggest, entirely unhelpful for the Government of this country to make generic allegations of abuse of process against an entire sector of the legal profession.”
He pointed out: “It is not an abuse of process simply because the Home Office does not like the challenge. Suggesting widespread abuse when there is absolutely no evidence of that at all is not only unhelpful, it damages public confidence in the legal profession and in its practitioners. In extreme cases, it may engender violence.”
Click here to access the full correspondence.
The exchange follows controversy last week when a last minute court order prevented a number of offenders being deported on a flight to Jamaica. The Home Office described it as “disappointing that specialist immigration law firms continued to use last minute tactics”; the person who tweets as The Secret Barrister observed: “the Home Office often doesn’t allow detainees to access legal advice until after the flight is booked. The appeals are 'last minute' because the Home Office specifically designs it that way”.