Barristers should stay out of the Israeli-Palestine conflict

The world of barristers had something of a minor civil war at the weekend. The cause? The lesser known ‘Bar Human Rights Committee of England & Wales’ (BHRC), decided to weigh in on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

In a letter to the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, the BHRC called on 'the UK Government to urge Israel, its friend and ally, to cease all violations of its obligations and responsibilities as an occupying power immediately, including its assault on Gaza'. It said:

'We urge the Government to issue a statement of unambiguous support for an independent investigation into alleged war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory by the ICC'

In response, it's worth asking two questions: why are some of my barrister colleagues so desperate to be politicians? And why the need to appear to speak for every barrister, rather than just give their private view?

When the statement was issued, many lawyers were concerned this was a statement from the Bar Council and thus spoke for all barristers. The Bar Council is itself a bit of a confusion. In the past, it was the regulator that all barristers had to join and pay money to. But that regulator is now the Bar Standards Board, and the Bar Council remains, appendix like, with no clear function or use (although we still have to join it and we still have to pay for it).

A Times headline added to the confusion: 'Backlash at Bar council’s ‘one-sided’ call for investigation into alleged Israel war crimes,' it said. But it wasn’t a statement by the Bar Council. In reality, the BHRC turned out to be just a private members group with a misleading name – and the Bar Council just gives it our money. 

The damage was already done. After all, the public can hardly be blamed for thinking the BHRC and the Bar Council are the same thing. This is deeply problematic.

Why? Because the Bar is where most judges are recruited from. How can people have confidence in the independence of their judges if they know barristers go about spouting politic with their metaphorical wig on?

The system we have should not elevate the private political opinions of barristers. Nor should it ever make it look as though we are jointly making any political statement. Union membership is voluntary. Unions have votes. Barristers get neither option. Most industries would have systems to prevent private political views being made public – not subsidise them.

These political issues are often harrowing and complex problems – who needs or wants a bunch of wig-wearers popping in? If you are a person who needs to be told their political opinions by a private members group then by all means listen to the BHRC. But other brands of private group are available and the WI at least have cake.

The serious risk here is that the public are confused and ultimately offended by all this; politics is inherently divisive, that’s why judges don’t do it. But if we do, justice itself will be weakened and faith in the independence of barristers reduced.