|
Clarke hints at deportation deal
A deal to deport foreign
terror suspects currently held without trial could come within the
next few weeks, the home secretary, Charles Clarke, hinted today.
In an interview with the Times he revealed that the government's new
strategy, in the wake of December's decisive ruling from the law
lords that such detention was unlawful, was to secure deals with
suspects' countries of origin to safeguard them from death or
torture.
In his first newspaper interview since replacing David Blunkett as
home secretary, Mr Clarke said: "I think we should be prosecuting
much more energetically our ability to deport the individuals
concerned to the countries from which they come, in all these
particular cases from north Africa."
There are currently 12 men detained, mostly at Belmarsh high
security prison, under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act,
introduced after the September 11 attacks. The men cannot be
deported due to the threat of torture or death in their home
countries because of Britain's obligations under the Human Rights
Act.
The Anti-Terrorism Act allows for them to be held indefinitely, but
last month the law lords called their legal position "untenable" as
it discriminated against foreign suspects. UK nationals cannot be
interned without trial.
A deal would most likely be announced as part of the government's
five year plan on asylum and immigration, expected in three weeks'
time.
Mr Clarke told the paper he and Jack Straw were looking for improved
"memorandums of understanding" with overseas governments to
guarantee the safety of the suspects on their return home.
But the home secretary, who describes himself in the interview as
"no instinctive liberal", also made clear he would like to see
telephone tapping used as evidence in terrorism trials.
He said: "I do not think the solution to the law lords' judgment for
this government is in deportations, but they will help."
The move towards deportation was welcomed by the Liberal Democrats,
but they warned they would vote against renewal of the powers unless
a long-term solution was found.
Mark Oaten, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said: "The home
secretary's determination to find a solution is welcome, but safe
deportation deals may offer only a one-off solution to holding
foreign terror suspects.
"Charles Clarke must also consider the wider implications of holding
detainees without charge and the need to consider ways of achieving
convictions.
"Liberal Democrats will oppose the renewal of the powers to hold
foreign detainees without trial unless progress is made on this
whole issue."
Last week another of the specialist lawyers assigned to represent
the men resigned in protest at the restrictions his team were
working under.
Rick Scannell's resignation followed that of Ian Macdonald QC, one
of the most senior special advocates, who attacked the anti-terror
laws as "odious" when he stepped down last month.
The 12 suspects may challenge their detention before the Special
Immigration Appeals Commission but neither they nor their lawyers
are allowed to see the secret evidence to be used against them. That
evidence can be seen only by the special advocate appointed to
represent the detainee's interests, who may not discuss it with the
detainee or his lawyers.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights campaign group
Liberty, said she had serious reservations about the idea floated by
Mr Clarke.
She told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "Assurances have to be a
lot more than a piece of paper when we are talking about countries
with a very very poor record on torture and human rights generally.
"The government is going to have to do quite a lot to convince an
English court that assurances not to torture people will really
stack up on the ground."
Nicola Rogers, one of Britain's leading immigration lawyers, also
voiced concerns.
She told the programme: "It is somewhat illogical to suggest that
someone is a suspected international terrorist, but nevertheless be
happy that they should be in circulation outside of the UK. If they
pose a threat to the international community then it seems illogical
to me that they should be in circulation.
"If on the other hand the secretary of state is going to negotiate
something whereby they are not in circulation, therefore detained,
he is simply passing on his own illegal detention to another state,
a state which may feel financial pressure to take on those
particular charges.
"You have to ask yourself, why would a state want to take on a
suspected international terrorist, and go to the expense of
detaining them, potentially indefinitely, or keeping an eye on them,
unless there were other incentives for them to do that."
She added: "If a country is wont to torture people, I would treat
with a great deal of circumspection any kind of suggestion by that
state that they may not torture."
But the shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, said: "I welcome
any move to get them back to their homelands. I think it is right
that we try and make sure that they don't go back into something
which is unacceptable in terms of human rights."
Source: The Guardian
19 January 2004
|
%20enjoins%20justice.gif)
