Recent press comment about the role of the attorney general, Richard Hermer, referred to in your article (‘Deeply unfair’: how attorney general became lightning rod for criticism of Starmer, 13 February), overlooks the principle that those representing parties in contentious litigation have the right, and indeed the duty, to put forward the case for their clients without fear or favour, so that, as and when appropriate, the court or tribunal can itself independently decide whether such a case is or is not valid. As the great British advocate and judge Norman Birkett once pointed out in a radio talk about the art of advocacy, it is essential that a lawyer’s presentation of the case for a client is not perceived as an expression of the lawyer’s personal opinions.
With decisions as perverse as this one being made by them, that's going to be pretty difficulty to maintain, isn't it?
Not only would this be incorrect as a matter of fact, but it would also undermine our system of justice, under which the case for each side is fully and objectively presented before a decision is made by an impartial and independent tribunal.
Stories like this one aren't really helping are they?
Those who state or imply that, in doing this, the lawyers are advancing their own personal opinions, are doing immense and untold damage, not only to our legal system but to society as a whole. They are undermining the rule of law and opening a path towards a society in which the public no longer trust the legal system or the individuals who participate in it.
So, who is saying this?
Stephen Hockman KC and Sam Townend KC
Former chairs, Bar Council Christina Blacklaws and I Stephanie Boyce Former presidents, Law Society
Ah.
