In discussion: Brexit
Last week, when it was reported that the Italian Supreme Court had essentially sanctioned the defence of necessity for an individual who stole food to stave off hunger, I held my breath waiting for the headline hysteria warning our nation of shop keepers to triple lock their sandwich cabinets because the 'Europeans' were authorising daylight foodstuff thievery.
Perhaps Katie Hopkins was under sedation, because the story passed without great frothing expressions of 'How very dare they?' But as the Brexit/Bremain debate staggers into its 250th week, we are urged to believe that the Human Rights Act (HRA) and indeed common-sense European regulations and directives guaranteeing employees' rights are responsible for creating an immoral, lawless society, where, as Ian Duncan Smith (an irony-free zone) declared, the interests of the poor are trampled upon. For the Brexiteers, the sooner we leave Europe, the sooner order will be restored, with our home-grown workforce in full (call centre) employment, while the government will buy pink unicorns and public sherbet fountains for all with our savings of £350m per week.
The reality, however, is that the electorate is being force-fed misinformation. The much-celebrated and equally maligned HRA has little to do with our membership of the EU. Recently, the pro-European home secretary, Theresa May, spoke of her desire to scrap the HRA while remaining within the EU. Were we to leave, in principle there is no reason why the Act could not remain in place. It is intended that the British Bill of Rights seeks to replace HRA. If we were to remain, yet abandon the HRA, it will be for the European Commission to determine whether the level of commitment demonstrated is sufficient not to be excluded from the EU. The HRA is not a mythological beast, and in the last month we have seen the immense impact that it can have on ordinary people's lives with the Hillsborough verdict. Brexit campaigners focus on the fact that the European Court of Justice (as opposed to the European Convention on Human Rights) regularly rules against the UK.
And, for those who peddle both our membership of the EU and the HRA as a criminals' charter, it ought to be clear that European Arrest Warrants have led to the extradition of over 1,000 requested persons from other EU states to the UK. Conversely, hundreds of EU fugitives appear before Westminster Magistrates' Court each year to face extradition proceedings. Brexit would not prevent those wanting to settle in the UK from doing so, but it may prevent the ease in which those who are wanted elsewhere are returned.
As legal professionals, the facts speak for themselves about the importance of our membership of the community and European institutions, which keep in check our own executive's failings. Continued membership of the EU does not mean that shoplifters will be quoting Italian jurisprudence while running necessity defences.
Jonathan Black is immediate past president of the LCCSA and a partner at BSB Solicitors @bsbsolicitors www.bsbsolicitors.co.uk