The Law Lords are the UK equivalent of the US Supreme Court justices; so when the highest court in the land rules that detaining foreign terrorism suspects with trial is incompatible with European human rights law, the UK government has to take notice. Given that the UK opted out of that part of the European Convention on Human Rights that relates to the right to a fair trial, it can legally choose to ignore the ruling of the Law Lords. However, to do so would likely further undermine public confidence in an already embattled government, and it is, therefore, unlikely to do so. A statement released after the Laws Lords had issued their ruling by the newly appointed Home Secretary David Clarke suggests that the British government will review and amend the UK?s anti-terrorism legislation in order to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords.

The British government?s position will not be helped by the resignation of lawyer Ian MacDonald, one of the ?special advocates? appointed by the British government to review secret evidence on terrorism cases. This panel of advocates was appointed in order to provide the appearance of fairness and to give the British public some measure of confidence that foreign detainees were being held with just cause. MacDonald resigned on the grounds of conscience, resulting, he said, from a belief that the advocate system was simply being used to justify a policy that ran counter to basic notions of justice. This is a common view held by a significant minority in Parliament and the public and now by the Law Lords. Put succinctly by one of the Law Lords, ?indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is an anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.?