ROSS CLARK: Hysteria and hypocrisy of the left-wing lawyers who think they're beyond reproach

• e-mail

Far be it from me to dispense advice to some of the finest legal minds in the land.

But if you are going to complain about being called a bunch of 'Lefty lawyers', writing a self-important letter to The Guardian is possibly not the best way to go about it.

Nevertheless, 800 leading barristers, solicitors and judges have done just that — much to the delight of the Left-leaning newspaper, which reported it with glee on its front page and published the preening broadside in yesterday's edition.

Unsurprisingly, each word drips with self-importance as the lawyers explain how they are 'deeply concerned at recent attacks, made by the Home Secretary and echoed by the Prime Minister, on lawyers seeking to hold the Government to the law'.

Such 'attacks', they say, 'endanger not only the personal safety of lawyers and others working for the justice system… they undermine the rule of law which ministers and lawyers alike are duty bound to uphold'.

Far be it from me to dispense advice to some of the finest legal minds in the land. But if you are going to complain about being called a bunch of 'Lefty lawyers', writing a self-important letter to The Guardian is possibly not the best way to go about it, writes Ross Clark

Unsurprisingly, each word drips with self-importance as the lawyers explain how they are 'deeply concerned at recent attacks, made by the Home Secretary and echoed by the Prime Minister, on lawyers seeking to hold the Government to the law'

While they failed to spell it out, the letter is thought to have been prompted by a recent incident in which a man with a knife went into a London law firm and threatened to kill a staff member in an alleged Right-wing terror plot.

It goes without saying, of course, that violence or threats of violence are serious crimes which deserve to be met with the full force of the law.

Moreover, it's a maxim inherent within our modern, democratic society that anyone in public life has a duty not to use language which inadvertently inspires people to endanger others.

No one, however, could reasonably accuse the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, of whipping up violence.

Not once, as far as I know, has she suggested lawyers should be pulled from their chambers by their wigs. Nor has she ever asked to adapt Henry II's exclamation about Thomas Becket: 'Will no one rid me of these turbulent lawyers?'

In fact, all she is guilty of is using her speech at last month's Conservative Party virtual conference — which, incidentally, was held after the attack mentioned — to express her frustration at how 'activist lawyers' and 'Lefty lawyers' were using legal technicalities to prevent the deportation of illegal migrants, among them many violent criminals.

Of course, one could criticise the Home Secretary by pointing out that the lawyers are only doing their job, using the law in the best interest of their clients. 

If the Government wants to speed up deportations, then it should change the law — by reforming or abolishing the Human Rights Act — rather than moaning at judges and barristers.

But to accuse Patel, in as many words, of inciting violence? That is outrageous.

For the simple truth is that, though they may not like it, lawyers do not deserve to be protected from criticism any more than anyone else.

Nor are they all upstanding, unbiased members of society. Just ask the British troops whose lives were ruined by being falsely accused of abusing Iraqi detainees in the witch hunt carried out by now-disgraced former 'human rights lawyer of the year' Phil Shiner.

Indeed, for proof that Britain's legal system can fall victim to 'activist' lawyers, the case of Shiner — since struck off — speaks volumes.

But more importantly, to render these lawyers untouchable, to maintain that we should not criticise those in powerful positions because it might tip some deranged individual over the edge, is to completely undermine our democracy.

And I suspect that the 800 lawyers who signed the letter are fully aware of this.

After all, did any of them stand up ten years ago to defend MPs during the expenses scandal on the grounds that criticising them may inspire a violent attack? I certainly don't remember it.

All that Priti Patel is guilty of is using her speech at last month's Conservative Party virtual conference to express her frustration at how 'activist lawyers' and 'Lefty lawyers' were using legal technicalities to prevent the deportation of illegal migrants, among them many violent criminals

So make no mistake. All the signatories of this letter are trying to do is to find a ruse to shut down valid debate on a matter which concerns everyone: namely, how human rights laws are being used, or abused, to stop the deportation of convicted criminals upon their release from jail.

If these lawyers are concerned about violence on Britain's streets, they would do well to acknowledge that it has little do with Priti Patel, and instead realise that much of the blame lies in the extreme difficulties her officials seem to encounter whenever they try to deport violent offenders.

Take, for example, the case of Fitzroy Daley, who was jailed in 2013 for stabbing a man to death outside an East London pub. Or that of Fabian Henry, jailed in the same year for raping a teenage girl in Bristol and abducting another.

Both were among 50 prisoners due to be deported to Jamaica in February. Yet in the event only 17 actually left these shores after last-minute interventions by lawyers.

Among the farcical reasons used to stop others being deported was one claiming that a broken phone mast might have prevented them from accessing legal advice while in custody.

And that case is just the tip of the iceberg.

Further proof of our justice system's warped set of priorities was there in July, when an immigration tribunal blocked the deportation of Lithuanian national Feliksas Grigas, who had served six years in jail in his native country for sexual assault on a child, threatening behaviour, theft and fraud.

Who could forget Abu Hamza (above), the Islamist cleric who was eventually extradited to the U.S. in 2012? He was later found guilty of 11 terrorism charges and sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole - but not before he had resisted deportation from these shores for eight years, thanks to 15 court cases funded by £25m of taxpayers' money

Despite his damning record, he was allowed to remain here — partly thanks to a psychologist's report which concluded he didn't show 'any overt or entrenched attitudes or beliefs supportive of sexual activity with a child'. How reassuring.

But the depressing truth is that Britain's judiciary hasn't been fit for purpose for some time now. Indeed, I frequently think back to one incident 20 years ago, when nine Afghans with guns and hand grenades hijacked a plane and ordered it to be diverted to Stansted.

Yet when the then Home Secretary John Reid tried to deport them in 2006, the High Court ruled that he couldn't —a decision that even Tony Blair, himself a barrister by training and architect of our egregrious Human Rights Act, called 'an abuse of common sense'.

And who could forget Abu Hamza, the Islamist cleric who was eventually extradited to the U.S. in 2012? He was later found guilty of 11 terrorism charges and sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole — but not before he had resisted deportation from these shores for eight years, thanks to 15 court cases funded by £25 million of taxpayers' money.

When such an eye-watering bill can be racked up over a criminal such as Hamza, it seems clear to me that the law is the one profession whose fees and restrictive practices have never been properly reformed. (Though doubtless those 800 lawyers who wrote to The Guardian would claim that, in saying so, I am 'endangering their personal safety'.)

And then there is the hypocrisy of it all. For yesterday's letter was also yet more evidence, if we needed it, of the Left's shamelessly flexible view as to what language is acceptable and what is not.

So while they bleat about Priti Patel's perfectly harmless speech, I don't, for example, recall many on the Left complaining last month when comic Sophie Duker said on a BBC show: 'When we say we want to kill whitey, we don't really mean we want to kill whitey,' before quipping: 'We do.'

But as much as these well-paid lawyers and judges may like to think their honourable profession renders them beyond criticism, the brutal truth is that they are not. For ultimately, their arguments and their decisions affect us all. And all of us, the Home Secretary included, has every right to call them out when we think they have done wrong.