Law Lords and Anti-Terror Laws

[Prozac the Robert]

Terror detainees win Lords appeal
Detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, the UK's highest court has ruled.

In a blow to the government's anti-terror measures, the House of Lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by nine detainees.

The Law Lords said the measures were incompatible with European human rights laws, but Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the men would remain in prison.

He said the measures would "remain in force" until the law was reviewed.

Most of the men are being held indefinitely in Belmarsh prison, south London.

The ruling creates a major problem for Mr Clarke on his first day as home secretary following David Blunkett's resignation.

In a statement to MPs, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year.

"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."

Solicitor Gareth Peirce, who represents eight of the detainees, said: "The government has to take steps to withdraw the legislation and release the detainees."

If there was no swift government action, the detainees could ask the European Court of Human Rights to get involved, she added.

The Liberal Democrats say Mr Clarke should use the fact he is new to the job to take issue with a law established by his predecessor, David Blunkett.

The detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge.

The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US.

Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported.

But those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland.

On Thursday, Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.

"It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford."

But Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, the one law lord to oppose the appeal, said the anti-terror laws contained important safeguards against oppression.

In a statement, detainee 'A' in Woodhill Prison said: "I hope now that the government will act upon this decision, scrap this illegal 'law' and release me and the other internees to return to our families and loved ones."

The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case.

Ms Peirce claimed the detention had driven four of the detainees to "madness", saying two were being held in Broadmoor hospital.

When the men were first held, they took their cases to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).

The commission ruled on 30 July, 2002 that the anti-terror act unjustifiably discriminated against foreign nationals as British people could not be held in the same way.

But that ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeal who said there was a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm

Published: 2004/12/16 15:04:28 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Sounds good, yes? I mean, the Law Lords (for non uk people: judges who are also members of the house of lords, but not hereditary peers), who are our highest court have declared that the anti-terror laws allowing people to be detained without trial are illegal. But...

Lords wrong on detainees - Straw
Jack Straw has attacked the decision by Britain's highest court that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws.

The foreign secretary said the right to life was the "most important liberty" and the government had a duty to protect people from terrorism.

Law lords were "simply wrong" to imply the men were being held arbitrarily.

New Home Secretary Charles Clarke vowed the nine men would remain in prison while the law was being reviewed.

'Embarrassment'

The House of Lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by the men - dealing a major blow to the government's anti-terror policy.

But Mr Straw denied it amounted to a "constitutional crisis".

He said those held had a right of appeal to the special immigration appeal tribunal and the decision to hold the suspects was upheld by that court.

"The law lords are simply wrong to imply that this is a decision to detain these people on the whim or the certificate of the home secretary," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

The foreign secretary insisted it was for Parliament, and not judges, to decide how best Britain could be defended against the threat of terrorism.

But Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, said it was possible some of the detainees could now be released.

He said the Law Lords' ruling was an "embarrassment" for the government and major changes were needed to the law.

Persecution

The ruling came on Charles Clarke's first day as home secretary following David Blunkett's resignation.

In a statement to MPs, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year.

"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 detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge.

The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US.

Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported.

But those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland.

On Thursday, Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.

In a statement, detainee 'A' in Woodhill Prison said: "I hope now that the government will act upon this decision, scrap this illegal 'law' and release me and the other internees to return to our families and loved ones."

The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case.

Solicitor Gareth Pierce, who represents eight of the detainees, claimed the detention had driven four of the detainees to "madness", saying two were being held in Broadmoor hospital.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/u ... 103987.stm

Published: 2004/12/17 09:45:08 GMT

© BBC MMIV

The problem is that parliament is supreme over all other branches of our government. So in theory it can simply ignore the rulling.

It doesn't seem right though, since, as I understand it, the lords have basicly said that the anti-terror legislationis incompatable with our existing laws. I would have thought the government would have to give up, at least untill parliament can pass a bill saying that the existing laws don't apply.

[Stuart Mackey]

The problem is that parliament is supreme over all other branches of our government. So in theory it can simply ignore the rulling.

It doesn't seem right though, since, as I understand it, the lords have basicly said that the anti-terror legislationis incompatable with our existing laws. I would have thought the government would have to give up, at least untill parliament can pass a bill saying that the existing laws don't apply.

Something similar has happned here in NZ over a chap call Zoui, imprisoned without charge because SIS has a bee in its bonnet. Zoui has been bailed, however, pending a contining reveiw of his case.
I dont know why those chaps in Briitan were not bailed, at least, but I dont know what powers the UK parliment gave itslef that allow it to contiue to hold them regardless of this ruling.

One thing I am convinced of is that the concept of parlimentry soverignty must end.

[Xon]

In Australia we have illegal immigrants sitting rotting in Detension centres for years now.

Even if detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights, but that hasnt stopped the government from doing it before. Might draw some flak, but so did the 3 strike laws in some states. Even got a reprime from the UN, no one payed attention however.

I havent heard of anything like that with Australian Citizens, mainly because I would expect it to produce an outcry, which I havent noticed.

But then again...

[Prozac the Robert]

After some more thought and a touch of research:

Parliament can do whatever it wants. However there are a few limits.

In this case, two things will come up. The first is that the terror laws are to be reviewed (and indeed have to be) in parliament due to the lords' ruling. If the government wins then there is one more option, that being european human rights law.

Parliament is supreme sovereign, but has chosen to limit itself to the EU laws. Unless it removes the country from the EU, it has to abide by them. So if the human rights court were to rule the imprisonment illegal, then parliament would have no real choice short of withdrawing from the EU, which is rather unlikely.

Of course, in either case this leaves the question of what to do with the detainees. If they are released they may kill people, but if they are deported they may be tortured or killed in their home countries.

[Stuart Mackey]

After some more thought and a touch of research:

Parliament can do whatever it wants. However there are a few limits.

Only limits within the concept of 'rule of law'.

In this case, two things will come up. The first is that the terror laws are to be reviewed (and indeed have to be) in parliament due to the lords' ruling. If the government wins then there is one more option, that being european human rights law.

Parliament is supreme sovereign, but has chosen to limit itself to the EU laws. Unless it removes the country from the EU, it has to abide by them. So if the human rights court were to rule the imprisonment illegal, then parliament would have no real choice short of withdrawing from the EU, which is rather unlikely.

Unless it exempts itslef from portions of EU law. It only takes 51 percent and the EU cant do anything to stop that {I think, but could well be wrong}.

Of course, in either case this leaves the question of what to do with the detainees. If they are released they may kill people, but if they are deported they may be tortured or killed in their home countries.

Or they may be innocent people wrongly imprisoned, which is why you should have evidence of actual crimes and charge the suspect with those supposed crimes etc.