Anti-terrorist laws

· With hindsight, it is easy to say that Lord Steyn should have foreseen the possible consequences of expressing strong views, in a lecture, doubting the legality of the government's anti-terrorist legislation. He has paid a price, but, more importantly, so have we. Steyn's mistake, as we now see it, was to state in that lecture in November 2001 that the home secretary was legally wrong in deciding that there existed in Britain a national emergency which entitled him to disregard the European convention on human rights, and thus to push through a law (allowing limitless detention without trial) which flouted that convention.

Now that that very issue is coming before the law lords, Steyn finds himself excluded from the nine-judge panel that will hear the case. Reluctantly, I think that is right, and Steyn himself appears to agree.

Especially since Lord Hoffmann's failure to declare an interest in the General Pinochet case, top judges are extremely sensitive to allegations of not being impartial and open-minded. Steyn's remarks in the lecture were unequivocal, and on the very point that now has to be decided; he could not possibly be seen as open-minded. Therefore he has to go.

The result is first, that one of our very best judges will not be involved in ruling on one of the most important constitutional and human rights issues of recent times. Second, his absence could well affect the result of the case. Looking at the make-up and previous records of the law lords, it is possible that the result will be reached by a narrow majority. With Steyn absent, it is quite possible that what would have been a 5-4 majority against the home secretary would become 5-4 in his favour. So our draconian anti-terrorist laws, a crucial element in the government's anti-terror strategy, could be saved because of a few sentences uttered by a judge two-and-a-half years ago.

There is a particular irony here. Steyn himself is a strong supporter of law lords not participating in the legislative activities of the House of Lords and has taken the personal decision not to speak in debates. One of the main reasons for opposing the involvement of law lords is precisely that they may express an opinion which will subsequently be the subject of a case before them. It is ironic that, of all judges, it is Lord Steyn who should be the victim of that principle, albeit for his views in a lecture rather than a parliamentary speech. The effect which the Steyn affair will have on other judges (not only law lords) is another matter. They regard invitations to deliver lectures, usually to legal societies, as one of the few platforms available to them to express their opinions unlinked to cases before them. I hope that what has happened to Lord Steyn does not scare them off.

· Over the past 40 years, successive editions of Anthony Sampson's Anatomy of Britain have traced the changing structures of power and influence that make this country tick. His latest, just out (published by John Murray), is subtitled Who runs this place? There is no easy answer, of course, but lawyers and judges obviously come into the jigsaw.

Forty years ago, Sampson quotes Lord Falconer telling him, their political power was huge. If they were opposed to something, it wouldn't happen. Now, their internal power has diminished. Lawyers are only one group whose views have to be weighed; their role in decision-making is not what it used to be.

I am not convinced. True, lawyers used to dominate the House of Commons; now, they are not just fewer but far more lightweight. You could also argue that the dismissive, almost insulting way in which ministers such as David Blunkett treat lawyers and judges is evidence of their waning influence. Yet Tony Blair's cabinet (like Mrs Thatcher's) is lawyer-heavy; many of the prime minister's closest advisers and trusties are lawyers and the House of Lords has a disproportionately influential legal membership. The judges have, on the whole, been winning their recent battles against government ministers and measures that offend against the rule of law. It is still judges to whom the government turns when controversial events of national importance need to be analysed - Lord Hutton's inquiry is one of many examples. And lawyers still abound chairing and running all sorts of organisations that are a significant part of our national anatomy.

It may be that lawyers and judges as a cohesive group are no longer a powerful single force, but it is still true that you can find legal and judicial fingers influential in nearly every important slice of the national pie.