Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers in the UK
Abstract
This report is based on four submissions as below:
Liberty (Robinson, 2010) submitted an 11-page document which refers to previous government approaches to this subject and expresses a number of serious concerns, most particularly that the current Prevent approach will cause isolation and disillusionment of many UK Muslims.
Amnesty International’s 19-page submission (2010) finds a number of areas of concern regarding human rights erosions and lists several recommendations that the government could adopt to improve / correct the situation.
In his 16-page document that was presented to Parliament in January 2011, Lord Macdonald (2011) referred to his role in providing an independent oversight of the government’s Review. His overall conclusion is that he supports the recommendations of the Review which he feels can be implemented without undue risk to public safety.
The fourth and final submission considered in this report is that from The Equality and Human Rights Commission (2010), a 24-page document whose principal statement is that a longer period of consultation is needed in order to provide a fully measured response. It does however also give views on various measures covered by the Review.
Having reviewed the responses and comments made in these four submissions, conclusions drawn were that the Lord Macdonald report was broadly supportive of the government’s Review proposals, whereas the other three submissions were less so – the document from Liberty exhibiting the most negative responses overall.
Although the various views are somewhat disparate, they do represent bodies of opinion that should be taken into account. Hence this report recommends that their opinions should be given due consideration when debating any proposed policy changes and/or new measures in the counter-terrorism arena.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
4
2. FINDINGS
4
2.1
Liberty
4
2.2
Amnesty International
4
2.2.1
The Control Orders Regime
4
2.2.2
Diplomatic Assurances and National Security Deportations
5
2.2.3
Pre-Charge Detention of Terrorism-Related Suspects
5
2.2.4
Stop and Search Powers – Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
5
2.2.5
Amnesty International: Conclusions
5
2.3
Report by Lord Macdonald QC
5
2.3.1
Process of His Review
5
2.3.2
Pre-Charge Detention
6
2.3.3
Stop and Search (Section 44)
6
2.3.4
Photography and Counter-Terrorism Powers
6
2.3.5
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and Local Authorities
6
2.3.6
Access to Communications Data
6
2.3.7
Groups that Incite Violence or Hatred
6
2.3.8
Deportation of Foreign Nationals Engaged in Terrorism
6
2.3.9
Control Orders
6
2.3.10
General Conclusions
6
2.4
Equality and Human Rights Commission
6
2.4.1
Control Orders
7
2.4.2
Section 44 Stop and Search Powers
7
2.4.3
Detention Before Charge
7
2.4.4
Extension of Deportations with Assurances
7
2.4.5
Use of RIPA by Local Authorities
7
2.4.6
Organisation Promoting Hatred or Violence
7
3. CONCLUSIONS
7
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
7
REFERENCES
8
1. Introduction
This report has been written to review and summarize the content of submissions received by the IPPR from the following bodies and individuals: Liberty, Amnesty International UK, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC, and The Equality and Human Rights Commission. The report is based only on the documents submitted from those four sources.
The report aims to provide the IPPR with an overview of the four submissions and the views expressed by the organizations / individual concerned, thus facilitating better assessment of the spectrum of influential opinion regarding the new coalition government’s Review of counter-terrorism and security powers in the UK.
Following this Introduction, the report details the submitted findings, sub-divided into a major section per submission source, with further subdivisions to provide clarity and to ease assessment of the salient points. After the Findings, the report includes Conclusions and Recommendations, then finally a separate References page.
2. Findings
2.1 Liberty
Liberty (Robinson, 2010) sees Prevent as misconceived, not transparent, thus making provision of an in-depth submission difficult, concluding that Prevent has caused UK-based Muslims to feel isolated, causing their relations with authority to fall to an all-time low.
2.2 Amnesty International
Amnesty International has based their detailed submission (2010) on consideration of four of the six counter-terrorism powers within the scope of the government’s Review:
2.2.1
The Control Orders Regime: Amnesty sees this as allowing a government minister to impose these restrictions on persons who have not been charged with any criminal offence and who are thus denied fair trial rights that should be accorded to any suspected criminal.
2.2.2
Diplomatic Assurances and National Security Deportations: Amnesty deplores extension of the principle of “Deportation with Assurances” and believes other countries cannot be depended upon to honour such agreements and that any in-country monitoring of returned deportees is neither practicable nor reliable.
2.2.3
Pre-Charge Detention of Terrorism-Related Suspects: Amnesty believes that people detained in connection with a criminal offence be charged promptly and tried in fair trial proceedings, or be released.
2.2.4
Stop and Search Powers – Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000: Amnesty maintains that to date, exercising these powers in thousands of cases has not resulted in any convictions. Further that there is evidence that at least 14 police forces have carried out stop and search operations without authorization.
2.2.5
Amnesty International Conclusions: Recommendations, in abbreviated form, are as follows: Abolish control orders; Use the ordinary criminal justice system, not the special procedures currently used; Reduce the period of detention without charge; Repeal Section 44; Abandon the diplomatic assurances system reference torture; Reform the Special Immigrations Appeals Commission (SIAC) procedures; Ensure future counter-terrorism legislation complies with international human rights law.
2.3 Report by Lord Macdonald QC
Lord Macdonald (2011) noted that he was given full cooperation and that his premise has been that: “the British are strong and free people, and their laws should reflect this”.
2.3.1
Process of His Review: Although the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) conducted the government’s Review, he found that officials there were co-operative and open to ideas and that all areas of evidence were considered.
2.3.2
Pre-Charge Detention: He concurred with the view that the current 28-day limit should be reduced to 14 days, and that emergency legislation could be used if needed to extend that.
2.3.3
Stop and Search (Section 44): He agreed with the Review that Section 44 should be repealed, but that some authorization is needed to allow stop & search activities in respect of specific threats.
2.3.4
Photography and Counter-Terrorism Powers: Although repeal of Section 44 has solved many problems, Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 should perhaps stand to deal with specific aspects in this area.
2.3.5
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and Local Authorities: Regarding surveillance by local authorities, he agrees with the intention to stop all local authority surveillance unless for serious crime and approved by a magistrate.
2.3.6
Access to Communications Data: He considers the legislation needs streamlining to minimise abuse.
2.3.7
Groups that Incite Violence or Hatred: He agrees that individuals, not organisations, should be prosecuted.
2.3.8
Deportation of Foreign Nationals Engaged in Terrorism: On this issue he supports the government’s programme of “safe returns”.
2.3.9
Control Orders: Policy and legislation should be revised. Some restrictive policies need abolishing, but foreign travel bans & financial restrictions may still be needed. Further, these measures to be available only after Home Secretary application to the High Court.
2.3.10
General Conclusions: In general, the Review is heading in the right direction.
2.4 Equality and Human Rights Commission
In general, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (2010) welcomed the aims of the Review but considers more time is needed to provide a comprehensive response.
2.4.1
Control Orders: The Control Orders system needs to be revised, particularly in regard to disclosure of evidence to suspected individuals, and to make more use of surveillance.
2.4.2
Section 44 Stop and Search Powers: The Commission welcomes the Review in this area and recommends that the powers be made non-discriminatory.
2.4.3
Detention Before Charge: The Commission welcomes the proposal to limit the maximum to 14 days.
2.4.4
Extension of Deportations with Assurances: The Commission feels this proposal may increase the serious risk of torture and requests that future agreements are closely scrutinised.
2.4.5
Use of RIPA by Local Authorities: The Commission seeks a more comprehensive review of the powers in this regard.
2.4.6
Organisation Promoting Hatred or Violence: The Commission considers present legislation to be “piecemeal” and needing a comprehensive review.
3. Conclusions
For the most part the submissions were fairly detailed in their consideration and commenting of the government’s Review proposals. Lord Macdonald’s submission was broadly supportive of the government’s Review, whereas Liberty’s submission for the most part reflected the opposite view. Amnesty’s submission in the main took a view against the government’s measures. Finally, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s submission was supportive on several topics but less so on others, as described earlier.
4. Recommendations
Based on the submissions reviewed from the four sources, it is apparent that opinion is divided though it is perhaps to be expected that the three “Human Rights” organisations would be more critical of a number of the government’s policies in this area. However, their opinions nonetheless should of course be given due consideration when debating any proposed policy changes and/or new measures in the counter-terrorism arena.
References
Amnesty International, September 2010. United Kingdom: Submission for the Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers. Index: EUR 45/015/2010.
Equality and Human Rights Commission, September 2010. Submission to Review of Counter Terrorism and Security Powers
Macdonald, K., Lord of River Glaven, QC. January 2011. Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers. Cm 8003. ISBN: 9780101800327.
Robinson, R., December 2010. Liberty’s Response to the Home Office consultation on the Prevent strand of the UK counter-terrorism strategy.
