The Gazette 1967/71

weight to the growing lobby of pressure for Par liament to pass a new Bill of Rights. Several Private Members' Bills have been introduced, but have been unsuccessful. Sir Cyril said that Britain's unwritten con stitution worked admirably, was superbly flexible and had stood the test of time. But he wondered if it might not be wise to evolve, not one elabor ate written constitution but a modern bill of rights. He said whether anyone, looking 20, 30 and 40 years ahead, could be so sanguine to suppose there was no risk to liberty. It might be too late to build new safeguards then. They must be built now. Liberty was not being threatened only by the unnecessary and increasing multiplicity of re strictions on what a man may do, but by those who equated it with licentiousness and used it to trample on the rights of others. "We are suffering from far too many manifes tations of this tendency, especially, alas in the universities," he said. Those to blame were only a highly vociferous and much-publicised minor ity. " Sir Cyril said: "The public at large tend to get a wholly false impression of the young because of the highly-publicised antics of the minute minority." He was convinced there was nothing wrong with the youth of England." It had never been better or had higher standards or a great sense of responsibility than it has today." Sir Cyril viewed with horror the prospect of judges being appointed on the recommendation of a Minister of Justice who might be a career politician, ignorant of the tradition of the law. A Bill of Rights might provide that if there was no Lord Chancellor, judges should be appointed on the recommendation of a commission consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Senior Lord of Appeal. Courts, he said, should have much wider powers to control administrative decisions which affected basic individual rights. He thought citizens in conflict with the administration would rather take their chances before the judges alone. JURISTS WARN GOVERNMENT ON INTERNMENT The Government was warned last night that, under the European Convention of Human Rights, it could not re-open internment camps

unless the present public emergency could be fairly described as "threatening the life of the nation". The warning came in a statement by the Asso ciation of Irish Jurists after a special meeting of the Irish Council of the International Com mission of Jurists to discuss the Government's decision to provide for the re-opening of the internment camps. The Council called on the Government to intro duce, without further delay, legislation to make the Convention part of the law of the State, as Ireland had already done with many other inter national agreements. The Council joined issue with the Taoiseach, Mr. Lynch, on his statement in the Bail that the European Convention of Human Rights per mitted the arrest and detention of a person to prevent his committing an offence. The Council said: "Article 5 of the Convention, which provides for such arrest and detention, goes on to say that everyone arrested or detained in accordance with these provisions 'shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable period of time or to release pending trial.' "In the light of these important qualifications, the Convention clearly does not sanction any resort to 'preventive detention' in the true sense of internment without trial, save in the case of dire national emergency entitling a State to de rogate from its obligations under the Convention." The Council conceded that there could be cir cumstances where the ordinary machinery for the enforcement of justice broke down, and where interment without trial would have to be resorted to. The Council added that it was emphasised that "this measure is foreign to the whole principle of the Rule of Law and should only be availed of as a last resort in circumstances where the freedoms guaranteed under the democratic system are being used to undermine and overthrow democracy itself and to substitute for it a state of anarchy or an oppressive and autocratic regime. "Without having before it the information avail able to the Government, the Council could neither condemn nor approve the statement of intention of the Government, but urges orthodox means of law enforcement until they were clearly seen to be inadequate to protect the community". The Council laid great stress on the solemn undertaking by the Irish State when signing the 141