IN THE 14 years that it has taken the Government to launch the first phase of its statute law database, an American university has put online the entire collection of American law and Supreme Court decisions.

The lack of a statute law database highlights one of the ironies of British public life. We are all deemed to know the law and can be arrested for breaking it, yet nowhere is there a freely available copy of the laws in force. Local councils, police officers and various professionals are all required to keep abreast of the latest changes in the law, but doing so couldn’t be more difficult or expensive.

Despite the delay, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) is steadfastly refusing to release the raw data to a pro-democracy group with a history of building civic websites. The raw data is needed to build the database but the DCA prefers instead to build the system itself.

The latest in a series of missed deadlines for public access to statute law is now set for September. “The delay is unnecessary,” says Julian Todd, an IT developer and co-creator of the civic websites publicwhip.org and theyworkforyou.com. The sites mine Hansard to provide an easy way to view an MP’s voting or attendance record and keep track of debates or issues in Parliament. “I can’t comprehend what the DCA thinks it is gaining by not giving us a database dump of the law.”

Legislation is protected by Crown copyright in the UK, meaning that the Government has the final say on the use and re-use of all data. The situation couldn’t be more different across the Atlantic. Since 1992, the Legal Information Institute (LII), based at Cornell University, has been the leading online resource for US law and Supreme Court decisions.

“Because US copyright law is crystal-clear that statutes, regulations and judicial opinions produced by the national government are not subject to copyright, we were able to start putting federal law on the internet without securing permission or co-operation from any government office. All we needed was access to that material in digital format,” Peter W. Martin, Professor of Law at Cornell, says.

And that is exactly what it received. The raw text comes directly from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel and LII then provides hyperlinks to the entire US Code and an update service that integrates the congressional servers and the Library of Congress to supply accurate updates to any section that has changed.

While governments seek a monopoly on the collection of official information, European governments also seek a monopoly on its presentation and use. This has stifled innovation and competition in the development of law databases. It also costs more, as the taxpayer rather than the private sector pays for value-added development.

Tired of waiting for a government-funded solution, Todd and his colleagues, Francis Irving and a barrister Frances Davey, made a freedom of information (FoI) request for the raw data early last year. Their request was refused but they have appealed to the Information Commissioner, the independent regulator.

“Initially, the DCA said that it would cost too much to provide the electronic data,” Irving says. He tried to contact the DCA’s IT department but was rebuffed. Then the department changed its reason for refusal, citing instead an exemption for data contained in future publications.

Andrew Bell, a DCA spokesman, would not comment on individual FoI requests, but he confirmed that the DCA would not release the raw data. The department says it will begin piloting the public access version of its statute law inquiry facility within the week. The pilot will consist of three phases each about five to six weeks, including a short period within each phase to enable assessment of user feedback.

“Based on these plans we would expect to be able to make the service available for general use in September,” Bell says. The basic service will be free and the public will have access to all legislation contained on the database including everything in force as at February 1, 1991, revised primary legislation since that date and all secondary legislation from 1991 onwards.

But Professor Martin claims that the UK Government’s concerns about accuracy are overstated. “Accuracy issues tend to recede in the electronic environment because accurate copying is easy and fast. It is not as if we have 10,000 error-prone monks copying these documents with quills, with the attendant quality-control problems.” He recommends that if the Government is so concerned with accuracy it publish an “official” version alongside the raw data, as done by the US Supreme Court.

Lawyers are disadvantaged by the Government’s iron grip on data, too. “Few barristers can afford Westlaw or Lexis unless they’re a big firm or working for a big corporation,” Davey says. “It creates a two-tier justice system with only the very rich able to access the full consolidated law while those lawyers doing pro bono work are discriminated against.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones