Comments on the Independent Reviewer

I have received a number of interesting responses to my post yesterday about the British institution of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Clive Walker of the University of Leeds School of Law writes in with the following comments on the effectiveness of the office:

Successive Independent Reviewers (Lord Carlile and David Anderson, QC) have experienced the misfortune of being constantly assailed by my representations to them about many aspects of the UK terrorism laws. The impact of all our efforts is more difficult to judge since, as in the U.S., the delivery of legislative reform on terrorism laws is always mediated by a highly political and pluralist process. Nevertheless, I believe that the effort is worthwhile and can point to specific examples of impact going beyond “noise” or the pretense of engagement. Furthermore, perhaps the Home Office apparently believes so too. Its view (and that of Parliament) may be evidenced by the fact that the agenda of the Independent reviewer has continuously expanded. In addition, another outside voice has now been incorporated into the system. For the first time in 2011, the Independent Reviewer was granted by the Home Office some assistance in the form of a Special Adviser---me! While the office can hardly match the bevies of researchers who float around Congress, at least it is no longer entirely the one-man-show which you present in your paper.

I also received the following from a Lawfare reader who follows European security-oriented legal affairs closely but prefers anonymity:

I can only speak for the Independent Reviewer in the post-9/11 context; the position has been around for decades, and obviously until 2001 focused on Irish terrorism. However, my impression was that certainly the previous Independent Reviewer, Alex Carlile, who served in that position from 2005 to 2011, was generally respected as a tough but fair arbiter. It helped that he was a Liberal Democrat, so when he came down on the side of tougher terrorism legislation---as he often did---no one could argue that he was just toeing the [government] line or whatnot. He was also frequently the target of criticism from other Lib Dems and human rights groups, who felt that he betrayed their (purportedly common) ideals. You've correctly identified the strength of the Independent Reviewer: that he has access to classified information, which helps him accurately assess the situation. This is also a weakness, and leaves him open to charges (probably inaccurate) that he's a puppet of the intelligence agencies. As you know, people believe what they want to believe, and if UK-based human rights groups like Liberty choose to believe that the Independent Reviewer is less than independent [because] of his access, there's not much that can be done to change that belief.  That said, Liberty and its ilk were pushing for wholesale changes to/replacement of terrorism legislation, while Carlile advocated for tweaking existing legislation, so the two camps were never really on the same side at all.

Cian Murphy of the School of Law at King’s College London, recently wrote this review of the latest report by the independent Reviewer in the blog Human Rights in Ireland, a review which reflects some of the points my anonymous correspondent makes.