Democracy ultimately depends, not on the coercive power of the State, but on public confidence, according to Ms Cherie Booth QC. The legal system was an essential part of it, and it had to have the confidence of the community as a whole, so it was important women were properly represented in it.
Ms Booth was addressing a conference on women and the law in Dublin Castle at the weekend. It was organised to celebrate 81 years since women were admitted into the legal profession, and brought together delegates and speakers from both parts of Ireland and from England, Scotland and Wales.
"If the law is to be a vital part of our democracy, it must be open to all," she said. "It can't be the preserve of one segment of our society. We have to ensure the role of women in the development of law reflects their real role in society."
Ms Booth stressed the importance of the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British law earlier this year. This was as significant for women as the passing of the Equal Pay Act 30 years ago, and the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, she said.
A common slogan now was that women's rights are human rights, she said. There had been some opposition to this from feminists, on the grounds that human rights were seen as correcting abuses by the State, while much of what held women back was in the private sphere. However, individuals and companies could abuse human rights as much as the State, she said.
Victims' rights were recognised by the European Court of Human Rights, she said. It had explicitly ruled it was not just defendants who could seek fair treatment from the courts, but also witnesses and victims. Recent research had suggested there was a domestic attack every six seconds in the UK. In 80 per cent of these cases the attacker was male and the victim was female.
A recent judgment in the Court of Human Rights made it clear the human rights agenda had to ensure there was an adequate system of law in place to protect victims, that the relevant public authorities deterred such wrongdoing, and did not just prosecute after the event.
The Human Rights Act could also open up opportunities for women to challenge unequal treatment in areas like pensions, she said.
It would also have a role in creating a new legal culture. "It provides an exciting opportunity to frame debates and challenge the status quo," she said. "There is an explicit obligation to consider human rights in framing law."
This included not just an assertion of negative rights, the right not to suffer certain infringements, but the promotion of positive rights. "The principles which underpin the Act, of pluralism, broad-mindedness and tolerance should soak through and permeate the law," she said.
Certain feminists had criticised the Act because of the power it gave the judiciary which, they pointed out, was overwhelmingly made up of white, upper-middle-class men. However, Ms Booth said she was not so pessimistic about the judiciary, many of whom had expressed their support for the Human Rights Act.