Unconstituted on Red

Anti terror courts: The lesser of two evils?

The House of Lords have ruled 8-1 that detaining foreign terror suspects without their being subject to the safeguards under the criminal process that national suspects are due is incompatabile with the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain being one of the earliest signatories in the 50's.

Such an obvious breach of our incorporated duties did have reasons behind it. UK legislation makes it unlawful to deport a suspect where there is fear of persecution in their home country. However a glancing look at the profiles of just a few of the detainees raises a few eyebrows, and an understanding of how these detentions were felt to be necessary:

One Algerian was detained under special powers in December 2001. The Home Secretary said this man actively supported GSPC, an Algerian group said to have terrorist intentions. Suspect A "broadly supported" the aims of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
He allegedly used credit card fraud to raise funds for the organisation he supported. The government also claims A was associated with a terrorism suspect who was later apprehended at Heathrow.

Another, an Egyptian, was arrested in December 2001 after the home secretary concluded he was a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The group's leader, Ayman al-Zawhiri is the architect of the al-Qaeda ideology and the closest confidante of Osama bin Laden. The Egyptian courts have sentenced C in absentia to 15 years for allegedly trying to recruit army officers.

The other suspects are alleged to have similar links to terrorist groups and can should they choose to do so exercise their rights to leave. A rock and a hard place for the government, and now that the highest court in the land have ruled on their unconstitutionality in legislating the Anti Terror Act they'll have to change it.

An alternative would be the juryless Diplock courts in Northern Ireland coupled with the inclusion of phone-tap evidence and other intelligence currently inadmissible. It has already been proposed under Blunkett, but now that he's gone would Charles Clarke have the strength to push something that has and is still cause for much controversy and pressure from groups like Liberty?

The problem with the Diplock courts is that often lawyers themselves don't get to hear the evidence and have therefore no chance to challenge it. The obvious democratic shortcomings don't help either especially when the objective ability of Judges such as Lord Hutton have been called into question. Anglo-Irish Oxford educated elite ruling on IRA suspects doesn't seem so palatable to some. However his judgement in the Armagh Four trial was testament to his integrity, and restored credence to the process.

Although these terror courts themselves may prove unpopular, the decisions of the judges, and their reasons for arriving there could be aired like they are in the Diplock courts as well as having an automatic right to appeal allowing for lawyers and appellate judges time to scrutinise the judicial reasoning.

Charles Clarke has released a statement saying that he will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the new year, but was uncommittal as to a result,

""In the meantime, we will be studying the judgment carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords."

The HoL ruling can be found by clicking on the orange title.

posted by Khalid Smythe @ 7:20 PM