leyton.org

The detention in prison of individuals purely at the behest of a member of the executive is one thing, and that - rightly - was declared illegal last year. But the alternative proposed by the current government is no better. The proposal (so-called Control Orders) is such that the liberty of any individual felt to be a terrorist threat can be curtailed by the home secretary. This government is showing a complete contempt (again) to the legal process. This directly undermines Habeas Corpus, a crucial foundation stone for the British legal system, as well as many others based on it from around the world.

It’s my firmly held view that there should be a strong separation of powers between the executive, legislator and judicial arms of government. Sadly, we’re some way off of that, but the general trend should be towards such separation, not in the opposite direction! This government seems to want to grant itself more and more powers, and withhold more information from people who need it (The detailed legal justification for the invasion of Iraq being withheld from members of the cabinet most recently (so much for the ministerial code of conduct)

I completely fail to see the reason why a judicial process cannot be followed in any case where a member of the public (British or otherwise) will have their freedom and personal liberty curtailed. There is some concern over the admissibility of evidence into a public proceeding, but it’s surely a guiding principle of any law based society that any accused person should be able to respond to charges and dispute the prosecutions version of events. Curtailing the public reporting of such cases is preferable (if regrettable) than curtailing an individuals rights.

Of course the assumption here is that the ‘intelligence’ is relevant. If we’ve learnt anything in the last two years it’s that “intelligence service intelligence” is an oxymoron. We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. No such weapons have been found. If we can’t trust intelligence on such serious matters involving the lives of thousands of British soldiers, and millions of Iraqi’s, how can we trust the intelligence regarding the freedom of one individual? As we can’t trust it, it is vital that it is properly scrutinised. Which is exactly what the Home Secretary is trying to prevent.

The story is developing even as I write this, with more concessions on offer, now that it is obvious that even Blair’s close friends (including the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine) are against much of what is proposed. The Government is looking defeat in the face. Charles Clarke has won no friends in this issue by showing unbelievable contempt for the parliamentary system. Last week we had the farce of a vote on a proposal that was no longer backed: changes were announced in a letter rather than directly to the House of Commons who were debating the issue.

We also already have some of the toughest anti-terrorism legislation in the western world, as a result of the threat posed by Irish terrorism (on both sides of the sectarian divide). Detention without charge was - regrettably - a feature at the height of the troubles. It’s an aspect that shouldn’t be forgotten: This country has a habit of allowing such breaches of basic justice based on some perceived threat. We should remember that these detentions did nothing to improve the situation. Quite the opposite in fact.

Clarke is showing such contempt with veiled threats that there is no fallback measure, and that failure to pass the legislation on offer could lead to these people walking free. He has only himself, and his cabinet colleagues, to blame in that he was so unwilling to compromise to legitimate concern. Whilst I’m no fan of the basic thrust of this legislation, if it’s managed by the judiciary, reviewed on a regular basis, it’s better than what is current proposed..

But the best solution of all would be stand up in court and put evidence to those charged, and convince a panel of judges, or better still a jury, that their guilt is without question. This Government should stop granting more powers to the Executive, and let the Judiciary alone deal with the enforcement of the law.

If this Government gets it’s way, I’m afraid to say the terrorists will have won a sizeable victory. Fear itself will be the victor, and our way of life suffer a restriction too far. I’m minded of the words of Martin Niemöller (”First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a Communist…). If we don’t fight every restriction of liberty, every perceived threat to democracy and the basic tenants of justice, it could easily lead to a fundamental break down in our way of life.

Put yourself in the situation of a detainee. You’re held under a charge you cannot dispute, without the ability to question the evidence (assuming there is some), all because a politician decided you were a threat. It’s not a nice proposition, and it’s right that the various chambers (elected and un-elected) are holding the Government to account and forcing change to this atrocious piece of legislation.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 9th, 2005 at 1:15 pm and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.