For
several weeks a team of United Kingdom activist lawyers have been trying to get
answers over what it regards as one of the most worrying developments emerging
from the way the Boris Johnson-led Government conducts its business.
The Good
Law Project sensed concern when the Prime Minister supported his Special
Adviser, Dominic Cummings who travelled hundreds of kilometres on non-official
business with his family when the country was in strict COVID-19 lockdown.
The group
watched “in growing disbelief” the justifications, or rather the lack of them,
offered by Mr Johnson and other Ministers.
“What the
British public want us to do is focus on them and their needs rather than on a
political ding-dong about what one adviser may or may not have done,” Johnson
said.
Cummings’
own convoluted explanation was that he and his wife “might become ill” during
the pandemic and unable to look after their son, so they needed to travel to
family in the north of England to get support — even though he had relatives
nearby in London who might have been called on to help.
What
horrified the law team was that these lame and spurious excuses were supported
in a statement by the nation’s Attorney General, Suella Braverman who issued an
opinion that Cummings had broken no laws and his explanations should be
supported.
Founder of
The Good Law Project, barrister Jolyon Maugham said he could not understand how
Braverman could properly have given that advice.
“We
believe that it is of vital importance — to preserve the integrity of her
office, the integrity of the rule of law — that we find out,” Maugham said.
However,
requests for the legal basis for the decision were brushed off by both the
Attorney General’s Department and the Cabinet Office.
“In almost
identical responses they refused to disclose the requested information because
it would not be in the public interest to do so,” Maugham said.
“Instead,
they have said that it is more important that the Attorney General can continue
without fear of any adverse inferences being drawn from either the content of
the advice or the fact it was sought.”
Or in
other words, we do not have to justify whatever course of action we decide to
take.
This is
extremely dangerous reasoning.
Throughout
history the Attorney General, the chief law officer of the land, has acted as a
brake on Government Ministers; cautioning them from rushing into questionable projects
that could prove to be an embarrassment or worse.
While the
officer is a member of the ruling party, it has been generally accepted that
their first loyalty must be to apply rigorous interpretations of the law to
whatever the Government of the day does, or is planning to do, over and above
any political loyalties.
The
Attorney General’s office is not supposed to provide a tick-off for the
convenience of Ministers — as appears to be the case here.
By making
her decision, and then refusing an explanation of it by hiding behind a “not in
the public interest”, Braverman is giving the Ministers free rein to make a
plaything of the law — interpreting it to their advantage or, if necessary, ignoring
it altogether.
History
has shown that when Governments embark on this course, the only destination is
dictatorship.
