Without confidence in our legal system, it is difficult to make the argument that justice can be secured, whether you are simply trying to make a money claim, or if you are challenging those who hold the very levers of power and the abuse of their position.

Consumers I have dealt with have either entered the legal route unprepared and have therefore generally failed, or, they realise that in order to succeed before a judge, they need to seek guidance on how to make that journey a success by making a compelling argument, usually backed by sufficient evidence.

That is the nature of our system; it is a system that benefits from many years of judicial analysis and the delivery of a just result to all concerned. I believe that it is important to understand that the art of Judicial management of all our disputes, is the glue that provides order within our conflicting and diverse societies; a weakening of that bond breaks down that order, leading to a society that will become ill at ease with itself, providing for a collapse of confidence and a vacuum within which there is no logical independent substitute.

The recent High Court ruling on ‘Brexit’ is an explicit example of how the very institution that forms part of the very fabric of our society, is now under threat from those who disagree with not only its decision but its very independence.

In the days that followed, newsstands screamed headlines, which I had never imagined I would ever see expressed in my lifetime; ‘Enemies of the People’, ‘The Judges versus the People’, ‘Three Judges yesterday blocked Brexit’ - Judges were also revealed to have either created European Law Organisations, worked for Tony Blair at the time of the Iraq War or in the case of one Judge, was revealed to be gay.

It is quite one thing to be openly hostile to a judicial opinion, it is quite another to express a view that teeters on the brink of political control or incitement against the very part of the establishment that enjoys independence to the benefit of all. Note the distinction I have made; expressing an opinion versus expressing an opinion that has the potential to usurp the very democracy we live in.

So whilst I offer my condemnation of this current public dialogue, where have the very guardians of our Legal System been?

Our Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss MP, the pivotal personality in this country’s legal life, took two whole days to offer her support for the Judiciary, she is alleged to have stated:

“The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality. In relation to the case heard in the high court, the government has made it clear it will appeal to the supreme court. Legal process must be followed”.

It was hardly a ringing endorsement for the High Court Judges, it was no more, no less than a corporate line trotted out in the hope that it would get her off the hook. It fell far short of the moral position she should have also taken, to map out how in the discourse of opposition, argument, not personalisation of the Judiciary in such stark emotive terms, is the only democratic tool to be deployed and to be encouraged in a free press.

In the outcry, following Truss’s statement, our Prime Minister, several days after the court decision and press fall-out stated:

“I believe in and value the independence of our judiciary. I also value the freedom of our press. I think these both underpin our democracy and they are important. Of course the judges will look at the legal arguments. We think we have strong legal arguments and we will be taking those arguments to the Supreme Court”.

In other words, a middle of the road stance, no moral compass, yet more corporate speak!

It took the European Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muizniaks, to apparently address concern about the tirade against the judges and called on the government to provide a ‘stronger message’ to support the judges!

It was left it would appear, to the UK Attorney General to state:

“The claimants in this and every other case are entitled to bring their case and to have it heard by the court and are entitled to do so without being harassed or intimidated. The judges in this case are entitled to decide this case in any way they choose in accordance with their judgment. I’m sure they would accept they are unlikely to decide so without criticism. But the principles [of the rule of law] remain critical in cases as big and fundamental as this one. I can and do defend those principles at the same time that I disagree respectfully with the court”.

This was showcased as ‘support’ for the Judges and condemnation against a vitriolic press! He is right, where you are engaged in any public discourse, you can and should expect to meet some criticism, that is the nature and range of debate, but, again in my view, his comments fell short; the Executive branch again appeared to fail to unequivocally support these individual judges and encourage respectability in public debate.

The UKIP leadership contender, Suzanne Evans, perhaps expressed what many were probably thinking when she called for the ‘democratisation’ of the Judiciary, presumably to provide an extra layer against what she believes is an imbalance against the will of the people. She went further to describe the Legal Profession’s collective response to the ‘leave’ vote as being akin to a ‘hissy fit’!

From the Barrister Community, the Bar Council were clear when they stated:

“[the Bar Council] condemns the serious and unjustified attacks on the judiciary arising out of the Article 50 litigation. It regrets the lack of public statement by the Lord Chancellor condemning these attacks and calls upon the Lord Chancellor to do so as a matter of urgency. A strong independent judiciary is essential to a functioning democracy and to upholding the rule of law”.

The UK Law Society offered:

“Attacks on the judges simply because they were doing their jobs does our country no credit and government ministers must be unequivocal in their support for the rule of law, even if they disagree with the judgment”.

This public discourse should concern all citizens and ring alarm bells amongst our political class. It is not so long since a political class imposed a political control and edict upon its judiciary that affected its very independence with horrific consequences. I was minded of the German Lawyer, Hans Litten, who pursued Hitler and the right-wing rise to power in 1930’s Germany. His was a courageous quest against a backdrop of a State undergoing the seizure of its power in the press and government, in an effort to expose the tactics and lies of the Nazi’s. Despite being warned by friends to flee Germany, he chose to stay and was arrested following the Reichstag fire and placed into concentration camps. He spent his last days in Dachau, where believing his situation was hopeless, he committed suicide.

The Rule of Law, our Sovereignty, our Constitution it seems is facing an onslaught from forces who either do not understand its complexion or indeed its pivotal role in our daily life’s or perhaps there is an even greater agenda as is suggested by the Law Society’s press release. This is such an important issue because it cuts to the very heart of every citizens ability to seek a justice; a justice that is offered without fear or favour.

The Lion’s in our midst would appear to be few in number; we should pay heed to this deficit because if the very fundamentals are threatened with impunity, it offers little hope to ordinary citizens in their time of real need.

Frank Brehany – All Rights Reserved © 2016 (First Published on 8/11/16)