Yes. It was a balancing exercise, because initially I stayed in there, after the new legislation was introduced in 2001, because like other special advocates and like most lawyers, I thought I might be able to make a difference by staying in. But eventually I felt I had to balance what little difference I might make by being in there against the fact that I was legitimizing a form of indefinite detention, on reasonable suspicion merely, for an indefinite period. I felt in conscience that I couldn't stay on there, and I felt particularly, in light of the House of Lords judgment, that the view I took was a very tenable one.
Unfortunately, only one other special advocate resigned at the time I did. The others decided to stay on. And I have never publicly criticized them and I won't do so now. It was a very personal decision. It seemed to me that the wrong balance was being struck with the whole way in which these particular people were being treated, because at best, at the very highest, they would be grade-C terrorists, and one has to look at whether there really was a serious threat to the life of the nation in Great Britain at the time.
Of course that is a personal opinion, not me speaking as a lawyer.