Thread by @GeorgePeretzQC

I agree. @SuellaBraverman’s reply obfuscates and avoids @elliereeves’ point.

https://twitter.com/elliereeves/status/1324360783493550080

Lawyers may - and indeed must - seek legal remedies to which their clients are, or are arguably, entitled if their clients instruct them to do so. It is their duty to do so whether or not that can be seen as achieving political ends. Her answer skirts round that critical point.

@SuellaBraverman’s answer refers to the point that Counsel sometimes rebuked for pursuing politics by other means. That reflects the fact that - in the absence of an arguable legal remedy - the courts aren’t there to decide political questions.

But that answer, perhaps unintentionally, reveals why the current government’s critique of the courts for allowing legal process to be used to pursue politics by other means is off the mark.

The courts can and do bring political cases where there is no arguable legal remedy to an abrupt end: and they make their disapproval of such attempts known to lawyers who try it.

But in cases where courts accept that there is an arguable case for a legal remedy - as in various cases brought by those seeking relief against unlawful deportation - it is simply unacceptable for lawyers acting for those clients to be attacked for doing their duty.

A duty on which the rule of law depends, on which every single one of us may one day need to rely on, and which an Attorney General live to the duties of her high office would be loudly and firmly defending.

NB - those agreeing with that point also need to acknowledge that defences of that kind - however justified (and they are) - ring hollow to those who have real legal problems but no access to legal representation.

Why can’t I get a lawyer when others seem to be able to?

But the answer to that isn’t to attack those lawyers who do their best to help some people: it’s to make sure that similar help is available for anyone who needs legal assistance to defend themselves or to secure their legal rights.

Or, put shortly, the problem with “activist lawyers” is that there aren’t enough of them.