Andreas Whittam Smith: These verdicts underline the dishonesty of politics

As I counted the calamities that had been heaped on to the Government by the courts during the past few days, the title of the first satirical television programme I ever saw came to mind: That Was The Week That Was. The humiliations started last Tuesday when a High Court judge ruled that retrospective changes to immigration rules for skilled workers were unlawful and "an abuse of power". Then next day, Wednesday, the Government's policy of deporting terror suspects to countries that sign "no torture, no ill treatment deals" was shredded by the Court of Appeal.

At the same time the Law Lords gave their response to a claim by the mothers of two teenage soldiers killed in Iraq that the Government must hold a public inquiry into the invasion because it failed to ensure that it was legal and justified. While the appeal was unanimously dismissed, one of the Law Lords, Lady Hale, said that she wished they could have established a duty on a state not to send its soldiers to fight in an unlawful war, but they could not go so far. If my child had died in this way, she said: "I would want to feel that she had died fighting for a just cause." She dismissed the case "with sorrow".

That was the best the Government could do all week because on the following day, Thursday, came further searing criticism. Two judges ruled that the Government had broken the law by scrapping an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into arms deals between the British arms company, BAE Systems, and Saudi Arabia.

The Government's embarrassment was not yet at an end, however, for on Friday a High Court judge ruled that sending soldiers to war with defective equipment "could be a breach of their human rights" – under the right to life provision. In all but the House of Lords case, the point at issue was pretty simple.

So far as skilled migrants were concerned, tens of thousands of whom had been encouraged to come with their families to work and stay in Britain, when the Government suddenly changed the rules and threatened to throw them out, they said it was not fair. It wasn't. The judge called it "conspicuous unfairness and an abuse of power".

As for the deportation of terror suspects, what the court struck down was an absurd policy of "deportations with assurance" that had been introduced in the wake of the 2005 London bombings by the then prime minister, Tony Blair. Because Britain is obliged under international law not to send suspects back to countries where they risk ill-treatment, Mr Blair came up with the wheeze of signing memorandums of understanding with countries that habitually practise torture such as Jordan, Libya and Lebanon under which they stated that they would desist when prisoners had come from Britain.

Unlikely, particularly in Libya where the group which is supposed to monitor independently any breaches of the "no torture" rules is headed by one of Colonel Gadafy's sons. The deals were a confidence trick.

In the arms export case, what was at stake was how a strong state like Britain deals with a threat from another and the status of the rule of law. The Government's answer – Mr Blair again – was that you swiftly bow the knee and jam the wheels of justice. Inevitably the judges were critical. "We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat" they said.

Even simpler was the final case of the week. When a soldier is sent into battle, he or she naturally expects to be properly armed. Unfortunately so dense and so uncaring of criticism is the Ministry of Defence that only by invoking human rights in the courts could bereaved families get the attention of government ministers. I can never get used to the fact governments habitually break the law. It wasn't just Mr Blair's administration. When Michael Howard was home secretary in a Conservative government, he had many run-ins with the judges.

Part of the explanation is that politics is an activity in which casual dishonesty is the way of life. As the saga of MPs expenses has taught us, some actually cheat and many take advantage. Furthermore, government ministers are always more concerned with gaining party advantage than with what they would call legal "niceties". Better to look tough on immigration than to treat people fairly. Better to appear strong on terrorism than to rule out torture. Better to land arms deals by whatever means required than to uphold the rule of law.

Finally, those who directly serve the state sometimes think that they are above the law. They believe the interests of the state are supreme. The law is for the rest of us. The state can do what it likes.

Interesting? Click here to explore further