Sir, You warn judges against “over-interpretation” of the law and retreating into the ivory tower of self-indulgence whilst leaving the public exposed to terrorism (leading article, August 12; see also letters, August 15). I appreciate that one interpretation can be right and another wrong, but I do not understand the concept of grades of interpretation or how an interpretation can be selfindulgent when the interpreter has no personal interest.

The government of every state has an inherent right to refuse entry to or to deport any foreign citizen whose presence it deems not to be conducive to the public good. But Parliament can voluntarily restrict this right. This it did by enacting the Human Rights Act 1998, which prohibits any deportation which would expose the deportee to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the exercise of their duty to interpret and apply the will of Parliament, the judges will take account of any memorandum of understanding with the receiving state, but they will not seek to balance the risks to the deportee against the risks to the United Kingdom of refraining from deportation.

If Parliament wishes to amend the Human Rights Act to require the undertaking of this balance, it can do so and the judges will seek to give effect to it. But in my view it is a wholly political exercise. The only merit of such an amendment would be to relieve the Home Secretary of a responsibility which is truly his.

JOHN F. DONALDSON
House of Lords

From Mr William Wyndham

Sir, Mr Roger Everest (letter, August 13) suggests that judges are out of control because they take public political stances. Recently too, senior politicians have complained of judges’ dissent on proposed anti-terror and licensing laws.

The notion that judges have no place in politics seems dangerous and out of date. In making good laws we need their practical experience and expertise.

Perhaps judges as lawmakers should be made subject to parliamentary control by greater, not less, representation in Parliament. Law lords and other senior lawyers and judges could be included on a joint legislation committee of both Houses, to be tasked with constitutional Bills and Bills concerned with public order and safety.

Under the British constitution Parliament is where government and people meet.

WILLIAM WYNDHAM
Lewes, East Sussex

From Mr Lawrence West, QC

Sir, Mr Everest suggests that judges need to be put in their place by a Minister of Justice. The function of the judiciary is to apply the law established by Parliament — in this case the Human Rights Act, the pride of new Labour — neutrally and objectively. The judiciary is not the lackey of whatever faction happens to be in power.

Robert Mugabe has a Minister of Justice who regularly puts the Zimbabwean judiciary in its place. Is that what Mr Everest really wants?

LAWRENCE WEST
Temple, London

Explore Letters

• Feedback