2. Control orders
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Read the relevant clause of the Freedom Bill
Part IV of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 introduced the so-called “Belmarsh provisions”, which allowed for the Home Secretary to detain indefinitely any non-British citizen whom they suspected to be a terrorist, pending deportation, even when such a deportation would be prohibited. Thankfully, this affront to freedom was overturned by the Law Lords, who ruled that this latter day internment was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government’s response was to repeal them in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and replace them with control orders, which enables the Home Secretary to impose an unlimited range of restrictions on any person they suspect of involvement in terrorism. The restrictions imposed by some control orders amount to house arrest and they can include controls on who a person can meet or speak to; when they can leave their house and where they can go. This undermines the freedom not only of those on control orders but of their families as well.
These restrictions can be placed on British citizens and foreign nationals on the basis of reasonable suspicion, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence as Ministers do not have to prove that they have committed any crime. Control orders also undermine the separation of powers and the right to a fair trial, as decisions to impose them are made by politicians not judges and are based on secret evidence, which the individual concerned is unable to see and powerless to dispute. They can also be renewed annually for an indefinite period.
The Liberal Democrats voted against the continuation of control orders in 2007 and 2008. John Reid has admitted that the regime is full of holes and yet when they are debated each year there is no opportunity to amend them. The regime is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable. Several controllees have absconded and others could be prosecuted with further investigation. Our courts and criminal justice system are robust enough to deal with the challenges of modern terrorism. We should put our trust in them and not rely on something as unfair as labelling people terrorists and subjecting them to a range of draconian punishments without ever charging them or trying them.
[...] insidious and authoritarian pieces of New Labour and Conservative legislation, including ID cards, control orders and the worst elements of the DNA database. You can read the full text of the Bill here, sign up to [...]
I do not agree that our courts are “robust enough” to deal with terroroism. If they were, huge resources could be diverted from anti-terrorist work into establishing positive realtionships in the different sectors of our multi-cltural society, the vast majority of whom have moved to the UK in the hope of enjoying them. Better means of ensuring safety are needed, and your proposals seem not to suggest any.
I tink this is a useful tool with the correct checks and monitoring of the individuals and the processes involved. I do think any restrictions should be measured and taylored to individual investigations. As a n inteligence aid to disrupt the rutine of those under investigation,it could and should be used.
@Hugh:
Terrorism is *not* a threat in this country. Look at the figures – in the last ten years, several hundred times more people were killed in car accidents than have been injured in terrorist action. Terrorism has become the new Big Lie.
I’d like to support the comment by Tharrick Lawson. Terrorism is a vastly inflated concern, stoked up for political reasons by authoritarian forces, and for commercial reasons by right-wing media. It always seem fine to lock up other people for what you fear they might be going to do, but it won’t seem so clever when it’s you or your family forbidden to leave your home or forced to report all your movements to police, on the basis of secret ‘evidence’ from unknown accusers that you have no right to know, let alone rebut.
As previously commented, the repeal is entirely justified, but you have to address the problem that the law was designed to address, which in this case is:
What do you do with dangerous criminals who have committed crimes overseas but can’t be deported there to face justice because they may be tortured.
Simple answer: we need to find a way of prosecuting them here. That way control orders and such like would fall by the wayside.
Excellent. It’s such a shame how little attention this party’s work is given.
[...] 2. Control orders [...]
[...] 2. Control orders [...]
[...] the Lib Dems noted in our proposed Freedom Bill, ‘The restrictions imposed by some control orders amount to house arrest and they can include [...]