Arguing that lockdown is incompatible with human rights

‘The state decided without debate to restrict our rights and freedoms in ways that are unimaginable in a democratic system. This is not the way a normal liberal society operates. What is terrifying is that this wasn’t just imposed by governments, people wanted it. Of course people can choose to stay in their homes, but they wanted it to be law, to impose these restrictions on others.

Protest was made illegal on the 26th March, in fact any gathering of more than two people was made illegal. This is an epochal moment, it feels like a barrier has been breached.. One thing that is troubling is that people experience restrictions being lifted and talk of being ‘allowed’ to go to the pub or visit their family. Can you imagine saying that before?’

Overturning wrongful convictions.

‘The rule of law is being so emasculated that when you actually need it you will find it is no longer there. That then leads to arbitrary decisions, overreach and being used against citizens. We have become too used to being a liberal democratic country and our rights are being pulled away by stealth. If we don’t have a strong legal framework then we will move towards law by government and not law through Parliament and the heart of democracy will be gone. We must be alert to that.’

Law or Fiction - separating law from lockdown guidelines

‘We need to trust the government to act on our behalf in the event of an emergency. We can forgive the government for a knee jerk reaction. But within a short period of time it was clear Covid was not going to be as deadly as predicted. When a wolf does materialise, can we trust the government next time?

There is a herd mentality among lawyers as much as the public. It’s difficult to put your head above the parapet and tell the government they have got it wrong.’

Watching state surveillance and big tech censorship

‘The idea that one of the oldest democracies in the world could buckle under a coronavirus is chilling. The question of the lockdown was never democratically asked.

Covid has given the world an electric shock. It’s a time when measures can be introduced and there is little bandwidth for people to oppose. Our instincts on freedom are at risk of drifting.

We campaigned for the duration of the Coronavirus Act to be reduced from two years to six months. It means that at the end of September there will be a vote on the act. We will produce a briefing for MPs and also encourage people to email their MPs. I know there are 1000s of people out there who are concerned about the emergency powers. Those people just need to realise their own power.’

A vigorous public defence of civil liberties

‘An ex-judge is not the ideal person to be conducting the kind of campaign I have been conducting. There is nothing wrong with it, I’m only a citizen, I’m completely unabashed about it, but these are the sorts of things which should be said by professional politicians. The reason I have done it is that I thought this was an outrage which was deeply damaging to civil liberties. No politician was prepared to put their head above the parapet and say that this was disgraceful and profoundly damaging to our traditions and to the people who are least affected by the virus because they are young. Somebody had to say it.’