The Integrity of the Law

Public confidence has taken a knock in recent years and the integrity of the law has been challenged.

As if the parliamentary expenses scandal were not bad enough with the subsequent but inevitable incarceration of prominent politicians, following on its heels was the Jimmy Saville revelation and all that flowed in its wake.

It seems we are faced with historical allegation after historical allegation of sexual abuse against people who hold celebrity status or are prominent in public life.

So government decided to set up a public inquiry into the ghastly child sex abuse which has taken place over the years. Public confidence needs to be restored. We all need to be sure that those perpetrators of wicked deeds upon our children and the vulnerable are brought to justice and punished appropriately.

What better person could there be to chair such an inquiry, one would have thought, than Baroness Butler-Sloss, a distinguished former President of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, deeply respected and renowned for her probity and tenacity?

Undoubtedly, if she had chaired the inquiry, she would have undertaken the task honestly, robustly and assiduously.

But hardly had her appointment been announced than the voices of opposition could be heard. Although Lady Butler-Sloss is also the daughter of a High Court Judge, the late Sir Cecil Havers, and quite beyond reproach, it was pointed out that her brother was the late Sir Michael Havers, Attorney-General during a period which must come under close scrutiny during the course of the inquiry.

“She is too close to the establishment” came the cries, “and the victims could not be sure that their cases would be heard fairly”. Maybe; maybe not. But her Ladyship knew the voices would not be quelled if she were to continue and, upon reflection, knew that old chestnut about justice being seen to be done had to be respected, so she stood aside.

It is difficult to know what the Home Secretary’s advisers were thinking about when the appointment was considered. They should have anticipated the commotion that would follow the announcement.

An eminent judge should never have been put in the position of having to consider her position in this way.

Where does that leave the public? Someone will have to be trusted with this important function. Unless an individual from another jurisdiction is chosen, he or she will be almost bound to have connections to the establishment.

Despite the unfortunate perception in some areas, no-one can be better trusted than our judges. Lady Butler-Sloss has demonstrated that by her own conduct. She knows that, above all, the integrity of the law must prevail. Only in that way may public confidence be restored.