Blunkett urged to repeal internment powers
A joint committee of Peers and MPs yesterday called on Home Secretary David Blunkett to urgently repeal the power to detain foreign terror suspects without trial.
In the wake of the September 11th atrocities in New York and Washington, Mr Blunkett introduced emergency detention powers for foreign citizens suspected of terror related activities.
To facilitate this detention, the Government opted out of a section of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights warned that to retain this power would “have a corrosive effect on the culture of respect for human rights in the long term.”
“If the threat from international terrorism is to continue for the foreseeable future, the committee considers that an alternative way must be found to deal with that threat without derogating indefinitely from important human rights obligations.”
It said that the public, and parliamentary, debate on the UK’s response to terrorism should take place within a human rights framework.
The committee notes that no other country, with the exception of USA, has resorted to indefinite detention and suggests this means “it must be possible to deal with the threat from terrorism by means of criminal prosecution.”
Severe concern is expressed about Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001- which lays out the regulations for detaining terrorists, and what evidence can be used against them.
Under this process, those detained have only recourse to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) whereby they are appointed a representative to argue their case before a security cleared judge in private.
The committee warns that the UK risks being in breach of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture if the SIAC was to hear any evidence gained under torture, for example from a foreign intelligence agency.
It casts doubt on the adequacy of the safeguards against injustice, and notes “the discrimination inherent in a measure which targets only non-nationals, and the disproportionate impact of the use of Terrorism Act powers on the Muslim community.”
This should be replaced as a “matter of urgency” the committee said.
Looking to the alternatives, it suggests tougher measures for the court system including the removal of the absolute ban on using intercept evidence, and recommends that consideration should be given to ways to allow criminal prosecutions of suspects, “even if these require some modification of the ordinary criminal process in order to deal with the problem of sensitive intelligence material.”
The report though comes down heavily against suggestions- reportedly backed by Mr Blunkett- that a new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism should be introduced. It, however, suggests that terrorism could be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
“The use of more intense overt surveillance, subject to safeguards, is preferable to indefinite detention because it is less restrictive of liberty,” it concludes.
Finally, the Government is urged to consider how the independent democratic scrutiny of its claims about the level of terrorist threat can be examined “so as to enable Parliament to reach a better informed assessment of whether the measures are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.”
