|
Clarke backs down
on detainees
As Guantanamo four arrive back, the home secretary prepares to act
on suspects held in UK
The home secretary, Charles Clarke, is expected to announce today
that he will accept the law lords' ruling that the indefinite
detention without trial of 12 terror suspects in Britain breaches
human rights laws.
The ruling, which came just before Christmas, struck at the heart of
the emergency anti-terror legislation passed in the aftermath of
September 11 by the former home secretary, David Blunkett.
Mr Clarke is expected to outline to the Commons today his proposals
to amend the legislation to meet the human rights concerns raised by
the House of Lords. He is likely to propose a new civil order,
similar to an anti-social behaviour order.
It would impose strict surveillance conditions on terror suspects,
including banning them from using the internet and mobile phones,
and possibly a new form of house arrest.
Cabinet-level talks were still going on last night over the details
of the package. In particular there were questions whether such a
power to place terror suspects under house arrest would comply with
the terms of the lords' judgment.
It is believed that such a proposal would need a new opt-out for
Britain from the European convention on human rights.
There was speculation last night that the 12 men, who are mostly
being held at Belmarsh and Woodhill high security prisons, and most
of whom come from north Africa, will be dealt with by a mixture of
measures.
At least one is expected to be charged and prosecuted under the
terrorism laws, and others may be charged with lesser offences or
released on bail under strict monitoring, surveillance and reporting
conditions.
The latter could include bans on using the internet and mobile
phones but would stop short of house arrest to comply with human
rights legislation. David Pannick QC, who often acts for the
government, has said that house arrest would still amount to
detention.
Mr Clarke will call for a national debate on the future of the
counter-terror laws in Britain, including the Terrorism 2000 Act,
which deals with the treatment of British terror suspects. The laws
covering foreign and domestic terror suspectsare due to lapse in
November next year.
The home secretary has made clear that he will not revoke the
certificates he issues that allow detention under the
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, or release the
detainees until parliament agrees on the future of the
counter-terror laws.
"I have reason to believe [they] are a significant threat to our
security, a judgment upheld by the special immigration appeals
commission, chaired by a high court judge," the home secretary told
MPs on the day of the law lords' ruling.
However, it is expected that today's announcement will spell the
eventual end of detention without trial for those incarcerated in
Belmarsh and Woodhill under part four of the 2001 act.
MPs must vote on the annual renewal of these powers within the next
three months.
Mr Clarke is still hopeful that renewed talks will persuade at least
one north African country to guarantee that it will not torture or
impose the death penalty on any terror suspect returned to its
shores.
The Belmarsh detainees are believed to come from Algeria, Egypt,
Tunisia and Jordan.
"I do not think the solution to the law lords' judgment for this
government is in deportations but they will help. There are other
strands we have to do," the home secretary told the Times this
month.
The options for replacement legislation include making the
surveillance intelligence obtained through phone taps admissible in
British courts and the creation of a new offence of "acts
preparatory to terrorism".
Before his resignation, Mr Blunkett floated a range of ideas,
including judge-only trials held in secret with security vetted
counsel.
He made clear that the government was trying to find ways of putting
on trial those suspected of being involved in international
terrorism without evidence that is admissible in a British court.
The law lords' judgment was so damning of the anti-terror
legislation that one of the panel, Lord Hoffman, went as far as
saying: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of
people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political
values, comes not from terrorism but from laws like these."
Lord Carlile QC, who was appointed by the government to be the
independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned ministers
that there is no possibility of getting a renewal of the existing
anti-terror law through the House of Lords in its present form.
He has suggested the creation of a new offence of "knowingly
carrying out acts connected with terrorism", with levels of
sentencing "according to the part played by the defendant".
Lord Carlile, a Liberal Democrat peer, also endorsed the idea of a
new civil order preventing suspects using the internet or mobile
phones, but short of house arrest to ensure that it is compatible
with the human rights convention.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights organisation
Liberty, said: "I'm delighted that the new home secretary is finally
responding to the judgment of the House of Lords. But I hope he
honours the spirit and the letter of the judgment."
Source: The Guardian
26 January 2005
|
%20enjoins%20justice.gif)
