|
This e-mail contains 4 items:
1 – CASE e-petition
2 – Control orders
i – the end of control orders?
ii – control orders review and renewal
3 – SIAC
i - bail applications for U and Abid Naseer
ii – Northwest 10 fight for justice at SIAC in March
iii – National security deportation to Ethiopia case to be heard at SIAC in April
4 – Upcoming events
-------------------------
1 – CASE e-petition
CASE put up a petition on the Prime Minister’s website in October 2009. There are currently 268 signatures and the petition will close on 29 April 2010. If you have not yet signed, please consider doing so at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/secret-evidence/
To confirm your signature on the petition, please reply to the confirmation e-mail sent once you have signed on the form page.
The petition reads as follows:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom has the right to a fair trial by ending the use of secret evidence to obstruct the judicial process.
For justice to be served, an accused person must know the case against him and be able to scrutinise and challenge the evidence in a fair, open and public hearing.
The injustice caused by the use of secret evidence is illustrated by Dinah Rose QC, who recalled how a man in a bail hearing asked the judge: “why are you sending me to prison?” to which the judge replied: “I cannot tell you that”. Rose added, “They simply took him to jail, without any explanation at all.”
Secret evidence is used to hold and detain individuals in prison and under house arrest conditions for years (affecting their families as well). It is used also in employment cases, to prevent disclosure of information about the role of Britain’s security and intelligence agencies in complicity with torture, and to refuse or revoke British citizenship.
The government must fully restore habeas corpus rights to the British justice system and sweep away all vestiges of a secretive process that is effectively a denial of justice.
--------------------
2 – Control Orders (many thanks to Frances Webber for her assistance in producing this section)
i – the end of control orders?
Following the House of Lords decision in the AF and others case last year, ruling that individuals subject to such orders must be given sufficient reasons as to why they are being controlled, several control orders have been lifted. The outcome of this ruling means that the government has the choice of either providing disclosure of the reasons the control order has been made or of dropping the order; without this disclosure, such orders are illegal. In all cases, the government has chosen not to provide disclosure and the control orders have been lifted. In some cases, however, the government has chosen to work around the secret evidence issue to impose new “lite” control orders, without curfews, tags or visiting restrictions, arguing that the duty to provide disclosure does not apply to such orders. Even where control orders have been dropped, the men concerned who have sometimes had these orders imposed on them, and their wives and children if they have families, for several years, still have no way of knowing what that secret evidence used to restrict their freedom was, ensuring that the ruling has not undermined the arbitrary power of the government.
Faraj Hassan, a Libyan former control order subject, had his order lifted in late December last year. It was imposed after the government decided that he and another Libyan national, who had his order lifted last month, were a threat to national security who could not be removed by deportation from this country as this move was blocked by a Court of Appeal ruling in a separate case in 2008. Commenting on the ruling in his case, Mr. Hassan said, “A control order is nothing more than a euphemism for what is basically Apartheid-style house arrest. Likewise there should be no doubt that its purpose is the same as well: to break you and make you want to leave that country.” (Source: Cageprisoners). By the time it is lifted, the secretive and arbitrary nature of control orders will have already wrought its destructive effect on the physical and mental health of the men involved and their families.
On 18 January, two former controlees, AE and AF, had their control orders quashed, as the Home Secretary refused to provide disclosure of the reasons these orders were made. Mr. Justice Silber ruled that without this evidence being made known to AE and AF, there was no case for imposing or renewing the control orders, which were thus effectively illegal, as was the nature of the restrictions. This has paved the way to the possibility of these former controlees suing the Home Secretary for damages for the unlawful restrictions. The Home Secretary has said that he will appeal this decision.
ii – control orders review and renewal
Control orders came about as a response to the House of Lords judgment in the Belmarsh case in 2004, ruling against arbitrary and indefinite detention for terrorism suspects without charge, and were introduced in the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) 2005. They were immediately imposed on the former Belmarsh prisoners. Their stated purpose is “protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism” and are imposed by the Home Secretary. The law is reviewed annually and may be either renewed or repealed. The debate will take place in parliament on 1 March and will be voted on shortly thereafter. There are currently less than a dozen control orders still in place and both foreign nationals and British citizens can be subject to them.
On 1 February, a review of the control order regime by the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, ordered by the Home Secretary last September, concluded that control orders were necessary to the safety of the country and “that abandoning the control orders system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security”. The Guardian reported that his report said, “there is "no better means of dealing with the serious and continuing risk posed by some individuals" than control orders, which place people under virtual house arrest on the basis of secret evidence, he said, while advising that less important suspects should be subject only to travel bans.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/01/carlile-backs-control-orders-terror At the same time, a draft of a order to renew control orders was put to parliament.
On 3 February, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) held a public evidence session on “Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Control Orders” at which oral evidence was given by solicitors Gareth Peirce and Sean McLoughlin and special advocates Helen Mountfield, Angus McCollough and Thomas de la Mare. The session was held to inform committee members before the forthcoming parliamentary debate. Commenting on the use of secret evidence in these cases, Mr. McLoughlin stated, “The evidence we get justifying the control order is limited, and for us to take instructions from a client to address the assertions is very difficult, and for that client to be able to respond in any meaningful way. In essence his evidence is given in a vacuum because he does not know quite a lot of the case that is being alleged against him. Equally the client will be suspicious of how any information he gives may be used, and clearly if you are trying to challenge an allegation against you the allegation needs to be made to you”. The discussion covered the effects of control orders on the individuals affected and their family, the development of control orders over the past five years and other pertinent points. An uncorrected transcript of the evidence can be read at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/uc356-i/uc35602.htm
Liberty has a started a campaign against the renewal of the control order legislation. For more details, please see: http://www.unsafeunfair.org.uk/ The campaign includes a petition that can be signed at: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/2-terrorism/control-orders/petition-to-end-control-orders.php and asks the public to lobby their MPs on this issue: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/2-terrorism/control-orders/lobby-your-mp-end-control-orders.shtml
CAMPACC has written an open letter to the Home Secretary urging him not to seek to renew the control order regime, and is also urging MPs to vote against renewal.
----------------------------
3 – SIAC (Special Immigration Appeals Commission)
i - bail applications for U and Abid Naseer
A new bail application was made for U after the 1 December judicial review ruling that bail could not be revoked or withheld from SIAC appellants on the basis of secret evidence. However, following a hearing on 7 December, this was again denied on the basis that he is deemed to pose a threat to national security. Rather than choosing to disclose the secret evidence in this case, the court decided instead to consider whether or not a new test needs to be applied for bail, working around the secret evidence involved. The grounds for this decision to revoke bail again were not disclosed at the hearing and were instead provided in a written judgment (can be viewed at: http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/outcomes2007onwards.htm). U has however been granted permission to judicially review whether SIAC has acted lawfully in changing the test for bail to get around the disclosure of secret evidence. This case will be heard at the High Court in London on 11 March.
A similar bail hearing was due to be held on 14 December for Abid Naseer and Ahmed Khan, the two remaining Pakistani students from the “northwest 10” group, arrested for planning an alleged “terror” plot last spring. This was instead held later on 5 February. At this hearing, bail was granted to Ahmed Khan but withheld again from Abid Naseer, who is the alleged “mastermind” behind the plot. A large part of his hearing was held in closed session which his solicitors were not allowed to attend.
ii – Northwest 10 fight for justice at SIAC in March
The substantive case for Abid Naseer and Ahmed Khan as well as two other men who are bringing out of country appeals, as the other eight students have all since returned to Pakistan, will be heard at SIAC from 8 March and is scheduled to last three weeks. Appeals have not been brought by the other six men involved. In this case, the appellants will dispute their deportation on national security grounds and will challenge the assessment that they are a threat to national security. More details of the location of the hearing, etc., will be made available in due course, however the public is encouraged to attend to witness the proceedings and show its support for these men.
iii – National security deportation to Ethiopia case to be heard at SIAC in April
Another important case will be heard in April concerning the government’s attempts to deport to Ethiopia an individual it deems to pose a threat to national security on the basis of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the two countries in December 2008. This case, concerning an appellant known as XX, will be heard in April and is the first time the government is seeking to return an Ethiopian national on this basis. The MoU essentially provides that the British government will be able to return Ethiopians to their country who it considers a security threat and that Ethiopia will accept such individuals. As with other countries the British government has sought such assurances from, such as Jordan and Libya, the very simple fact that such assurances need to be sought in the first place shows how unsafe and untenable it is to return individuals to them. Ethiopia, like many countries, has a poor human rights record, is currently engaged in border and ethnic conflicts with its neighbours, has/is embroiled in the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” programme, not to mention being involved in the wider lawlessness and general human rights abuses occurring in the Horn of Africa. Political prisoners are known to be tortured and abused in Ethiopia. The case will concern safety on return and a possible breach of Article 3 rights (ban on torture) as this MoU provides insufficient assurance. Little disclosure has been made thus far in this case.
-------------------------------
4 – Upcoming events:
Waiting by Victoria Brittain, Purcell Room, South Bank Centre, 12 and 13 March
Five women speak and sing their stories in their own words, stories of the unseen fallout of the war on terror. These are stories of real women from cultures as varied as Senegal, Jordan, Palestine and the English Midlands. They mostly came to the UK as refugees, or married refugees, but after 9/11 the world they loved here vanished overnight. One after another they were engulfed by private terror.
Directed by Poppy Burton-Morgan 'Waiting' is a powerful new work of verbatim music theatre, with an original score by Jessica Dannheisser. Performers include Juliet Stevenson, Gemma Jones, classical soprano Anna Dennis and mezzo soprano Carole Wilson, accompanied by cellist Oliver Coates. Video, projection and lighting design is by William Reynolds.
After each performance, Victoria Brittain chairs a debate discussing the issues raised during the evening. The panels include Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Gareth Peirce, Manjinder Virk, Riz Ahmed, Salma Yacob, Vanessa Redgrave and Moazzam Begg.
Tickets are £15. For more details and to book: http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/find/literature-spoken-word/tickets/waiting-50494
Coalition Against Secret Evidence
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
www.coalitionagainstsecretevidence.com
|
