Separation of powers

Tom Griffin (London, OK): As OK noted last month, the extension of detention without trial to 42 days is not the only worrying measure in the Counter-Terrorism Bill which is currently making it's way through the Lords. Today's Times suggests there is mounting opposition to the drastic restrictions on inquests under the proposed legislation.

Lawyers, opposition MPs and pressure groups have told The Times that the move represents a fundamental breach of the right to a public inquiry into a death – a centuries-old mainstay of British justice. 

They said that a full-scale campaign is being prepared to block the provision, which granted the Home Secretary unprecedented powers to intervene in the workings of the judiciary.

Andrew Blick and Stuart Weir (London & Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Two important conclusions can be drawn from Thursday's High Court judgement, which ruled the dropping of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) probe into the 'Al-Yammamah' BAe/Saudi arms deal to be unlawful. One is that the judiciary, for all its faults, can be relied upon to defend the rule of the law, the legal process and its independence from executive interference. The second is that the executive and in particular ministers cannot.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I love disagreeing with Iain Dale because he is usually onto something important and isn't frightened of his instincts, unlike most British politicians. He has just blogged the SFO/BAE case and criticised his own leader for supporting the government. But I think he has missed a trick here - along with the whole British media except, it seems, for The Sun and OurKingdom. There, I never thought I'd say that! Except that we two august organs agree from completely different points of view.

Daniel Leighton (London, Power Inquiry): When will the constitution really matter? Only when citizens are shot in the street, according to the Guardian’s Martin Kettle. Then he backtracks, a little. (Could it be the nervousness of a Blair groupie entering the age of Brown?) To his credit, he does take on a major story that the rest of the press ignores. This Tuesday will see crucial session of Alan Beith’s constitutional affairs select committee. It will consider whether the independence of our judiciary is under threat from the new Ministry of Justice, produced by John Reid like a rabbit out of a hat before he himself disappeared (see Geoffrey Bindman’s post in OurKingdom). Evidence will be taken from the Chief Justice Lord Philips saying there is a grave threat and the Lord Chancellor Charlie Falconer saying there is not. The heart of the ‘independence of the judiciary’ concerns whether the government is subject to the rule of law. When the executive has the power to subordinate the courts to its will it is a step towards dictatorship. Must we get to this point before we express alarm? Kettle grants that the issue is "a big one". Then has a slap at all those liberal types who are talking about “a far reaching constitutional crisis”. According to Kettle: “A constitutional crisis about judicial independence is what they have in Pakistan… which culminated in 41 deaths on the streets of Karachi”. Well, thanks a bunch. Falconer came to a privately negotiated ‘concordat’ with Lord Woolf, Philip’s predecessor, which supposedly secured the independence of the judiciary. Has it broken down? We will see if Beith’s committee can bring this hugely important issue clearly into the public realm.