Any suggestion it is mere coincidence that Garden Court barristers bring so many cases against the state on behalf of asylum seekers, protestors and even terrorists is belied by how many of them openly champion their hard-left views.
And while Garden Court racks up victories, the manner in which it has pushed the boundaries of the ECHR and sought to extend the remit of the right to family life to the point of absurdity leaves the ECHR looking less like a neutral instrument of law and more like a weapon in an ideological battle.
Activist lawyers are going to triumph more often than not so long as our elected representatives keep handing them the ammunition to fight. The limp suggestion this week from the Home Secretary that the government should ‘review’ how the ECHR is interpreted in the courts will have done little to deter the idealists of Garden Court. (The chambers were approached for comment about this article but no reply had been received by the time we went to press. However, they have previously said members of the independent Bar should not be conflated with their clients’ interests or views.)
Given that in many sensitive migration and asylum cases, judgments are made by lawyers who are open about their ideological opposition to tough border controls, the public might understandably think that our legal system is not operating with the impartiality it should.