The review of counter-terrorism and security powers (Twickenham & Richmond Liberal Democrats)

The review of counter-terrorism and security powers

January 27, 2011 10:24 AM

• [Jan 27]: THERE are two reports: Review findings and recommendations and A report by Lord (Ken) Macdonald of River Glaven QC. He writes:

'1. The Coalition Government's stated purpose in conducting this Review was to determine whether it might be possible to roll some back some of the measures imposed by counter-terrorism and other legislation over the last decades, consistent with public safety.

2. This resulted from a widespread perception, apparently transcending political ideologies and different political parties, that the boundary between freedom and security may have started to shift in the wrong direction in the United Kingdom in recent years, partly as a result of our responses to the increased security threats we have been facing, and partly because of an apparent increase in the State's ambition to be present in the more private spheres of human life.

3. These concerns coalesced in a growing sense that some of the traditional ways in which we have always defined ourselves as Britons might be under assault. It was only outside these islands, we had been taught, that people were asked by the police for their 'papers'. We did not generally believe that the government had the right, in the absence of any evidence of crime, to gather more and more information about us and about our neighbours. And many people questioned the right of the State to deprive citizens of their liberty for ever-increasing periods before deciding whether or not they deserved a criminal charge, or even to restrict their freedom for years in the absence of a conventional conviction.

4. The first duty of the State is to protect its citizens and so it is rarely difficult to justify increasing State power. But the promise of total security is an illusion that would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile. Perhaps we need a more adult relationship between the citizen and the State, that recognises the fact that some risks are worth running in order to enjoy liberty.

5. I have approached the task the Home Secretary has given me with a simple premise: the British are strong and free people, and their laws should reflect this . . '

__________________________________________________________________________________________

• Review pp 35-6 & 41-2: '1. Control orders were introduced in 2005 as emergency legislation. They were designed to address the threat from a small number of people engaged in terrorism in this country whom the Government could neither successfully prosecute nor deport . .

• 5. Since they were introduced, 48 people have been made subject to a control order. 28 of the orders have been imposed on foreign nationals. 10 of these foreign nationals were on a control order until the necessary arrangements were in place to begin deportation proceedings. Most of those who have been subject to a control order have been on an order for less than 2 years. Two foreign nationals spent more than 4 years on an order before their orders were revoked.

• 6. As of 10 December 2010, there were 8 people - all British citizens - on control orders. Of these: 2 had been on orders for over 2 years (one between 3-4 years, the other between 2-3 years); 4 had been on orders for between 1-2 years; and the remaining 2 had been on orders for less than a year . .

• 26. The key features of these new measures will be as follows:

i. They will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in urgent cases (where confirmation by the court within 7 days will be necessary). Before making the order the Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity and be satisfied that it is necessary to apply measures from the regime to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.

ii. The measures applied will have a protective effect, whether through disruption or through facilitating investigation. The police will then be under a strengthened legal duty to ensure that the person's conduct is kept under continual review with a view to bringing a prosecution and to inform the Home Secretary about the ongoing prospects for prosecution.

iii. The High Court will undertake a mandatory full review of each case after the measures have been imposed, with a power to quash or revoke the measures.

iv. They will be subject to a maximum time limit of 2 years. It would only be possible to impose a new set of measures on an individual after that time if there is new evidence that they have re-engaged in terrorism- related activities.

v. They will allow for an overnight residence requirement with some additional flexibilities e.g. in relation to overnight stays outside the residence. The overnight stay would be verified by an electronic tag.

vi. They will allow only tightly defined exclusion from particular places and the prevention of travel overseas.

vii. They will allow greater freedom of communication and association than the control order regime, placing only limited restrictions on communications, including use of the internet, and on the freedom to associate.

viii. Those subject to these conditions will be free to work and study unless this could facilitate or increase the risk of involvement in terrorism- related activity.

ix. These measures will be able to place only limited restrictions in certain defined circumstances on financial transactions overseas.

x. These measures will be able to require an individual to report regularly to the police.

xi. Breach of the conditions, without reasonable excuse, will be a criminal offence. The maximum penalty for breach will be 5 years' imprisonment.

xii. There will be no provision to impose conditions that would require derogation from the (ECHR) - in other words no provision for measures which would deprive a person of their right to liberty.

xiii. Some enhancements will be made to the operation of the special advocate regime pending fuller consideration in the forthcoming Green Paper on the use of sensitive material in judicial proceedings.'

__________________________________________________________________________________________

• Anti-terrorism review: 6 questions to judge the government by [Mark Pack Lib Dem Voice Jan 26]

• Liberal Democrat responses to anti-terrorism legislation review [Mark Pack Lib Dem Voice Jan 27]

• Progress On Stop And Search But Control Orders By Any Other Name [Liberty Jan 26]

• Easing of control orders makes this a proud day for civil liberties [Tim Farron Guardian Jan 26]