When the Archbishop of Canterbury waded into the choppy waters of Sharia this year, he caused uproar - not least, by his own subsequent admission, because of the “unclarity” of his remarks.

His words prompted a rash of condemnatory headlines. At best, Dr Rowan Williams was criticised as wrong-headed; at worst, as dangerous.

Last night the Lord Chief Justice had the perfect opportunity and location to offer his own contribution to the debate - and nail what he saw as some of the misunderstandings about Dr Williams's comments into the bargain.

He did so with some vigour: the Archbishop had not suggested that Muslims could be governed by their own system of Sharia, he said, but that they could choose to live their lives in accordance with Sharia principles - and not be in conflict with the law.

Crucially, though, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers made clear where the line was drawn: first, any such adherence did not mean Muslims were outside the law. “Those who live in this country are governed by English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts.” Secondly, neither the behaviour of violent extremists who perversely invoked Sharia, nor severe physical sanctions imposed in some Muslim countries, such as flogging, stoning or cutting off of hands, could ever be applied to or by any Muslim within this jurisdiction.

The Lord Chief Justice's speech went far wider, though, than the issue of Sharia within British society. He looked at other contentious issues: does the law discriminate against people - and if not the law, what about the judges themselves?

The law, he noted, had developed to stamp out discrimination in all its forms and now offered freedomand equality: landladies could no longer hang up a sign saying: “Bed and breakfast. No blacks or Irish.” People living here would receive equal treatment before the law and were free to practise their religion of choice, he said.

However, he made clear that such freedoms and rights bring obligations. Those, he said, who live in Britain “must take our laws as they find them”. Lord Phillips noted that although the law was secular, it was founded on one ethical principle that the Christian religion shared with most, if not all, others: “that one should love one's neighbour”. So the law here set out to prevent behaviour that harmed others. By contrast, behaviour that was contrary to religious principles and harmful only to those who commit it was not generally against the law.

If there was a gap, it was one the Archbishop also left open: can there be fair settlement of private disputes under Sharia between parties who may be unequal; where, for instance, women's rights are not equivalent to those of men? Sharia in the provision of financial services is one thing; in the family arena another.

Yet his final message was clear. It is not enough to say that everyone is entitled to equality before the law; people who enforce the law or apply it have a duty to ensure that all citizens receive it.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Hacker in final plea to stop extradition
• Lawyers? They're simply riveting . . .
• Companies slash legal spending