| Year 2008 No. 27, March 1, 2008 | ARCHIVE | HOME | JBBOOKS | SUBSCRIBE |
|---|
Fortcoming Events:
Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :
Fortcoming Events:
Creating a Climate of Fear: Counter-Terrorism and Punishment
without Trial
For Your Information:
The Counter Terrorism Bill 2008
The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in 21st Century Britain
Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site:
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail:
office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML)):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
4 issues - £2.95, 6 months - £18.95 for 26 issues, Yearly -
£33.95 (including postage)
Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text
e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10
Friday 14 March 2008 ® 6.30pm-9.00pm
London Muslim Centre
46 Whitechapel Road
(Tube: Aldgate or Aldgate East)
Organised by
CAMPAIGN AGAINST CRIMINALISING COMMUNITIES (CAMPACC) with
CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF TERRORISM (CFSOT)
Co-sponsored by the London Muslim Centre, Islamic Forum of Europe, Cage Prisoners and the Newham Monitoring Project
Yet another Counter-Terrorism Bill is currently before Parliament. It will impose new and worse forms of punishment without trial. Since the first permanent Terrorism Act of 2000, people have suffered much injustice under anti-terrorism measures, particularly Muslims and migrant communities. Out of over 1200 people arrested under anti-terrorism laws, less than 5% have been convicted of ‘terrorism’ offences, few of these involving any plans for violent activities. Less than 20% were even charged with such offences. A key effect and political aim has been a climate of fear – fear that political activity, or simply talking to the wrong people, will bring arrest or house raids.
Why does the government propose yet another Counter-Terrorism law? What effects will it have? What can people do to oppose it?
Speakers will look at unjust effects of the current anti-terrorism measures and how this injustice would be extended by the new proposals. They will explain and analyse the proposals in the new Bill. There will be plenty of time for questions and discussion – about what powers to oppose, how to present the issues to your own community, and what action to request from your MP.
Chaired by Hugo Charlton, Barrister, CAMPACC
SPEAKERS
Gareth Peirce Human rights lawyer
Saghir Hussein Cage Prisoners
Azad Ali Muslim Safety Forum
Ben Hayes Statewatch
Mahan Abedin Editor of Islamism Digest
Muhammad Habibur-Rahman Islamic Forum of Europe
Les Levidow CAMPACC
Victoria Britain Journalist
Asad Rehman Newham Monitoring Project
The chairman of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism, Dr. Kamal El-Helbawi, will join a panel discussion for the second part of the event.
JOIN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST INJUSTICE!
Centre for the Study of Terrorism - www.cfsot.com ® Campaign Against Criminalising Communities - http://www.campacc.org.uk ® London Muslim Centre - www.londonmuslimcentre.org.uk ® Islamic Forum of Europe - http://www.islamicforumeurope.com ® Cage Prisoners - www.cageprisoners.com ® Newham Monitoring Project - www.nmp.org.uk
THE COUNTER-TERRORISM BILL 2008: UNJUST PROPOSALS
The government’s new proposals are based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which defined terrorism so broadly as to include simply the threat of violence to property in an attempt to influence a government, anywhere in the world. This broad definition, with offences like belonging to or helping a banned organisation, criminalises many normal political activities in the UK and any resistance to oppressive regimes abroad.
Detention without charge would be extended from 28 days to 42 days
‘Terrorism suspects’ could be detained without charge for six weeks. Before 2000 it was 4 days. Neither government nor police have given any convincing reason for such a long period. The USA manages with 2 days, Algeria in 12.
Post-charge questioning of ‘terror suspects’ – presumed guilty?
‘Terror suspects’ could be subjected to further questioning after a criminal charge, even up to the trial date. Saying nothing could count against them at trial. At present, once charged one can refuse to answer till their trial, without this being interpreted as a sign of guilt or deception.
‘Terrorist connection’ would justify a heavier sentence
Judges could give people longer sentences for ‘ordinary’ offences if they had a ‘terrorism connection’. For example, public order offences like organising an unauthorised demonstration, if a speaker allegedly supports a banned ‘terrorist’ organisation.
Confiscation of property without trial
Convicted ‘terrorists’ could have their property confiscated – such as bank accounts, vehicles, computers or even a house. The special procedure for doing this would not be a normal trial. It could involve secret evidence which the affected person would not be allowed to know. Any connections between the property and terrorism would only need to be shown ‘on the balance of probability’. Charities’ funds could be confiscated in the same way.
Extra punishment without trial beyond the original sentence
Convicted ‘terrorists’ could face a ban on foreign travel once released from jail. This would be done by a special order, not a trial. Those convicted could also face a requirement to tell the police where they go whenever they sleep away from home, in some cases for life.
New offence for volunteers of not giving information to police
It is already an offence under the 2001 terrorism law not to tell police of suspected terrorist activities if you find anything suspicious in the course of your employment. The 2008 Bill extends this to volunteer workers, for example in a youth project or charity. People might be over-suspicious and report imagined activities because they are afraid of being criminalised for concealment. They also might be deterred from volunteering in a charity that sends money to Afghanistan or Palestine, for example.
New offence of providing information about the armed forces
The Bill would make it an offence to seek or communicate information about the armed forces which could be useful to terrorism. This could apply simply to peace protestors telling each other, for example, what happens at which gates of a military base.
Hiding evidence about police killings
The Bill would allow for the government to hold some inquests in secret, without juries, if evidence would be heard which they believe should not be made public in the interest of national security, international relations or any other public interest. Sensitive material about how and why a person was killed by the police or army would be hidden away and they would never be held properly to account.
Please ask your MP to oppose these proposals!
Re: Counter-Terrorism Bill proposals: oppose more punishment without trial
Dear xxx MP,
As a member of your constituency, I am writing to you about my serious concerns regarding the Counter-Terrorism Bill which was published in February. These proposals would extend the injustice of current police powers, which make exceptions to the normal criminal law, especially its protection of suspects through the right to a fair trial. The proposed powers are based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which defined terrorism so broadly as to include simply the threat of violence to property in an attempt to influence a government, anywhere in the world. Such a broad definition could include many normal political activities in this country and any resistance to oppressive regimes abroad. That Act also created ‘terrorist’ offences of associating with particular organizations, sharing a platform with their members, and helping them financially, e.g. simply by selling publications.
The proposed new powers will extend the injustice of the current ones, again linked with the excessively broad definition of terrorism in the 2000 Act. The proposals would extend punishment without trial in several ways, not simply by extending pre-charge detention. In particular I oppose the following new powers, which would be inherently unjust:
1. Detention without charge would be extended to 42 days
Neither the government nor the police have given credible grounds for why 42-day detention would be necessary. For anyone called a ‘terror suspect’, the current limit of 28 days already represents a drastic extension from before the Terrorism Act 2000. The 28-day detention period has been used as a substitute for a proper criminal investigation, instead intimidating and stigmatising people as ‘terror suspects’. Such a long detention violates the principle that citizens must be considered innocent until proven guilty. It amounts to internment in all but name, thus violating the principle of habeas corpus. This despotic practice puts detainees under enormous psychological pressure; it can be used to extract dubious ‘information’, thus justifying detention of yet more ‘terror suspects’. Extension to 42 days would impose even greater punishment without trial.
2. Post-charge questioning of ‘terror suspects’ – presumed guilty?
‘Terror suspects’ could be subjected to further questioning after a criminal charge, even up to the trial date. Saying nothing could count against them at trial. Under the normal criminal law, people once charged can refuse to answer questions, without this being interpreted as a sign of guilt or deception. Under this new ‘anti-terror’ measure, detainees will be more readily pressurised to give or invent information. Officially, questions may be asked only about the specific charge, but police can find ways around this rule.
3. ‘Terrorist connection’ warranting a heavier sentence
Even where a conviction is obtained under the ordinary criminal law, an alleged ‘terrorist connection’ could be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing the defendant. Such an allegation could refer to the broad statutory definition of terrorism. A heavier sentence could be based on a political interpretation of the defendant’s alleged activities or vague associations.
4. Confiscation of property without fair trial
Convicted ‘terrorists’ could have their property confiscated – such as bank accounts, vehicles, computers or even a house. This would be done through a special procedure – not a normal trial. It could involve secret evidence not revealed to the affected person. Any connections between the property and terrorism could be shown simply ‘on the balance of probability’. Charities’ funds could be confiscated in the same way.
5. Extra punishment beyond the original sentence
Convicted ‘terrorists’ could face a ban on foreign travel after release from jail, however minor their offence. This ‘foreign travel order’ would be imposed by a special order, not a trial. If placed on a ‘terrorism offenders register’, those convicted could also face a requirement to tell the police where they go whenever they sleep away from home – potentially for life. All these measures impose extra punishment beyond the original sentence – again without trial.
6. New offences
Under the 2001 terrorism law, it is already an offence not to tell police of suspected terrorist activities if you find anything suspicious in the course of your employment. The 2008 Bill extends this requirement to volunteer workers, for example in a youth project or charity. People might be over-suspicious and report imagined activities because they are afraid of being criminalised for concealment. They also might be deterred from volunteering in a charity that sends money abroad.
The Bill would also make it an offence to seek or communicate information about the armed forces which could be useful to terrorism. This could apply to peace protestors simply telling each other, for example, what happens at which gates of a military base – on grounds that such information could assist activities that damage property.
7. Systematic retention of DNA samples
Under the government proposals, police could retain all DNA samples collected for any reason and could check them against other samples in the interests of ‘national security’, even where no crime is being investigated. This power aims to use and expand a National DNA Database by stealth. In this way, more and more people are effectively treated as suspects.
8. Exception for UK-friendly state terrorism
Current anti-terror laws already permit the UK authorities to prosecute defendants for acts committed abroad, but the government now proposes that such decisions must be approved by the Attorney General. This requirement helps to ensure that the definition of terrorism will be politically selective. The Attorney General could block a prosecution of terrorist activity supported by the UK government, e.g. a mercenary in Liberia or an intelligence agent in the Lebanon.
9. Hiding evidence about police killings
The bill would allow the government to hold some inquests in secret, without juries, if some evidence should not be made public in the interest of national security, international relations or any other public interest – in the government’s view. Sensitive material, e.g. about how and why a person was killed by the police or army, would be hidden away; the killers would never be held properly to account.
For all the above reasons, I ask that you give an undertaking not to vote for renewal or extension of any ‘anti-terror’ powers. Please let me know your view on the new proposals. A fuller briefing paper on the Bill can be found on our web site, www.campacc.org.uk, or I can e-mail it to you if you wish.
I will contact your local constituency office for an appointment to discuss these issues with you. I look forward to hearing from you.
Outline of powers
Part 1 – Powers to gather and share information
Part 2 – Detention and questioning of terror suspects
Part 3 – Prosecution and punishment of offences
Comment: Would this stop legal action against war criminals (there is currently a power to charge people with terror offences committed abroad not necessarily against UK interests)
Part 4 – Notification requirements for convicted terror suspects
Comment: Can be life long requirement. Will additional conditions be attached in future bills? Applies to all people even those not considered a risk any more.
Part 5 – Asset freezing proceedings
Comment; This is the thin end of the wedge in the use of secret evidence against which there is no proper defence assisted by a lawyer of the defendant’s choice.
Part 6 – Inquests and Inquiries
Coroners’ inquests can take place without a jury if the Home Secretary authorises it because it is in the interest of national security or the interest of the relationship between the UK and another country or in the public interest (64)
Comment; This is a way for the police, security, and armed forces to avoid public scrutiny in cases ranging from deaths in police custody, repeats of the Jean-Charles de Menezes killing, the death of people like Baha Mousa in Iraq, and inquests into the deaths of British Service Personel
Part 7 - Miscellaneous provisions
Comment: This will allow cases normally prosecuted as incitement to racial hatred to be prosecuted as ‘terrorist’ offences.
Part 8 – Supplementary provisions
Detail
Part 1 – Powers to gather and share information (1-21)
Power to remove documents if search is authorised under any of the current terrorism acts.(1) It is also an offence to obstruct a constable in the execution of his duties under clause 1.(2) May not remove a document if the constable reasonably believes that it is legally privileged or has a legally privileged part of it. However, if a document is taken and then found to be legally privileged he must return it as soon as is practicable.(3) A record must be made of the withdrawal.(4) Documents must not be retained for more than 96 hours.(5) Access to documents from person they were taken from or occupier of building where they were taken from authorised by Officer in Charge of the case.(6) Documents seized under (1) may not be photographed or copied unless they are electronic and then only to provide a hard copy of it.(7) Document to returned when time limit expires(8).
Allows the taking of fingerprints and other samples including DNA, hair, footprint, nail etc from people subject to a control order. These samples can be taken without consent and reasonable force can used to take them.(10) Applies to Scotland (11) and NI (12). Transitional provision(13)
Retention of all samples (i.e. not just those taken from controlled person) is allowed and can be cross checked against all other police and both security services’ records. Adds a power to use these samples in the interests of national security.(14-17)
Any information can be given to, or disclosed by, the security services to carry out their job as set out in law, regardless of any duty to keep the information private or of any other restriction (19) other than information subject to the Data Protection Act or the Regulation of Investigatory powers Act.(20) Security agencies include MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (21)
This is to facilitate the use and expansion of the National DNA Database and other databases. Power to use samples in the interests of national security expands on the usual powers which allow the use of samples in the detection of crime etc. Therefore, they can use/check samples on the database in situations where no crime is being investigated. In addition, samples taken in normal police investigations can be checked by all other police and security agencies. Another step towards the joining up of all information databases.
Part 2 – Detention and questioning of terror suspects (22 – 26)
The reserve power is available to the Home Secretary once the Director of Public Prosecutions and a chief officer of Police, or their equivalents in Scotland and NI, agree in a report that there is a ‘compelling operational need.’
The report must contain:
A statement from both persons that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of one or more persons beyond the current limit of 28 days is necessary in order to obtain or preserve ‘relevant evidence,’ or pending the examination and analysis of relevant evidence or material (Computers, phones etc) that might give rise to relevant evidence. The report must give details for this belief. The report must also assess that the police are acting diligently and expeditiously in their investigation.
‘Relevant Evidence’=evidence relating to commission of an terrorist offence within s.40(1)(a) by detained person or that detained person falls within s.40(1)(b) TA 2000
Once this report is agreed the Home Secretary may make the order for the reserve power which allows the detention of any people currently detained and anyone subsequently detained to be held for up to 42 days. The power lasts for 60 days (or 30 if no vote takes place in Parliament). Applications to detain someone for up to 42 days once the power is in effect must be made on a case by case basis to a senior judge.
The Home Secretary must inform Parliament that the power is in effect within two days or as soon as reasonably practical. The statement must say that a terrorism investigation is under way or an act of terrorism has occurred and that there is exceptional operational need. The HS must say she is satisfied that the power is urgently needed for that investigation and that is ECHR compatible. The statement may not include any detail that might prejudice the detained person or criminal proceedings.
i.e. the basis of the report and any detail put in the report will not be given to the house or anyone else. There is no indication that the report and its details will be released to the public at any stage during or after the process.
Both houses must have a vote and approve of the power within 30 days or it lapses. If one house of parliament votes against the power then it must lapse immediately.
If the power is ordered close to the 28 day limit then Parliament may not have time to vote the power down before a person is held for more than 28 days. If Parliament is in recess then the HS can recall Parliament but it is not a requirement. In addition, will MPs have a free vote on the power?
Any person detained under these powers when the power lapses due to a negative vote or at 30 days where no vote has taken place or at 60 days on expiry of the power, must be released immediately.
Applications on a case by case basis to a senior judge (High Court or above) made every 7 days for a maximum 7 day extension (up to the 42 day limit). Judge can decide to extend detention for less time than asked for. Applications must give notice to the detainee, grounds for extension, representation and any information that is to be withheld.
If a person is held for more than 28 days then the HS must lay a statement before parliament as soon as is reasonable practicable. Statement does not say anything more than the perfunctory procedural information about when the detention was extended beyond 28 days, how long it will be extended for, the court that extended detention and where the person is being held.
After the reserve power period has ended, a review must be carried out by the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation (Lord Carlile QC). The review must include whether the power should have been granted in the circumstances, whether the procedure was properly followed, and whether it was justified in each individual case. Report sent to HS within 6 months of the power lapsing and then HS must lay report before Parliament.
Post charge questioning can be initiated on the basis that the person has been charged with a ‘terrorism offence’ and may continue for as long as the police want to up to trial. The police do not have to comply with codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which guarantee minimum standards in questioning and detention.
In normal circumstances it is possible for the police to question a suspect after charge but only if the interview is necessary 1) for preventing or minimising harm to a person or the public; 2) to clear up ambiguity in answers from pre-charge interviews; 3)if new information comes to light after charge and it is in the interests of justice. The change means that there does not have to specific reason for post charge questioning and failure to answer questions could act against an individual at trial.
The potential for relentless questioning leading to faulty information or false confessions will increase. Although the police should only question an individual about the offence in question, it is very likely that these interviews will become a ‘fishing exercise’ and will require a very experienced and resolute legal advisor to protect the interests of a suspect.
Part 3 – Prosecution and punishment of offences (27-37)
The AG must consent before the DPP can bring a prosecution against a person for an act committed abroad. This amends s.117(2A) of TA00 and s.19(2) of TA 06. The list of offences that can be tried in this way are any of those in the TA 00 and part 1 of TA06.
The question must be asked why there is any need for political involvement in a decision to prosecute. Can the DPP not be trusted? Will this mean that any action by lawyers on behalf of campaign groups to try Israeli war criminals or the like be politically vetoed? This is based on Lord Carlile’s recommendations.
Again, this is a Lord Carlile recommendation. Some Judges have been also lobbying for tougher sentences in their summing up at the end of trials. Judge Fulford has been at the forefront of this attitude. The issue of the terrorist connection will be hugely contentious. Deciding whether something is part of a terrorist will be left for a judge after hearing evidence and representations from the Prosecution and Defence. There will be no need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges already have discretionary powers to take into account the circumstances of an offence when deciding the appropriate sentence.
Offences where Terrorist Connection to be considered (Schedule 2 of CT Bill 08)
Standard offences such as Homicide offences, explosives, kidnapping, poisons etc but others that stand out as having possible protest or other implications.
The explanatory notes say that these offences are the ones most frequently prosecuted in terrorism cases, but has there been a single prosecution related to terrorism for endangering fixed platforms?
HS has the power to add offences to the list that could have terrorist connection, if approved by parliament.(31)
Person convicted of Terrorist Financing offences may have money or property forfeited if it had been used for the purposes of terrorism or they intended that it should be used or had reasonable cause to suspect it might be used for terrorist purposes.
Applies to other terrorist offences as well (s.54 TA00 weapons training, ss.57,58,58A possession of things or information for the purposes of terrorism, ss.59,60,61 inciting terrorism outside of the UK, s.2 TA06 terrorist publications, s.5 preparation for terrorist acts, ss9&11 radioactive devices and all terrorist connection offences, and offences of incitement, aiding and abetting, encouraging any of the above offences,) however, the conditions from Terrorist Financing are slightly different. The conditions are that it had been used for the purposes of terrorism or they intended that it should be used or the court believes that it would be used for terrorism unless forfeited.
Clause 35 allows a court to compensate a victim of a terrorist act if they have suffered a personal injury, loss or damage. Anyone who has an interest in a property that potentially will be forfeited can make representations to court.
There is no definition of person and so this clause may apply to a company; on the basis that Companies have legal personality and therefore are treated as individuals. The compensation would come from money/property forfeited.
Does this mean that a family could lose their house because of the action of another? In addition, could someone in joint possession of property lose it because that they had ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ even if they are not convicted of failing to disclose information to the police.
Part 4 – Notification requirements for convicted terror suspects (38 – 55)
HS can amend list of offences if approved by parliament and amend the sentence threshold if approved by Parliament (i.e. reduce the length of sentence required before these provisions will apply.)
This clause is retroactive and will apply to anyone convicted and sentenced in relation to a terrorism offence (but not terrorist connection) before commencement of the CT Act 08 if immediately before commencement they are imprisoned, on licence, unlawfully at large.
Must give the following information within 3 days of being sentenced:
DOB, NI Number, the person’s name(s) on the date that they were sentenced, home address(es), addresses where the person regularly stays (7 days or more, or 2 or more periods within 12 months which would amount to 7 days) any proscribed information (regulations made by HS approved by parliament). All changes must be notified within 3 days of the change.
Person must re-notify the police of all this information on an annual basis. The person will be fingerprinted, photographed and iris scanned on re-notification.
If sentenced to over 5 years (or an Indeterminate sentence for Public Protection) then the notification scheme applies for life. If sentenced to less than 5 years then scheme applies for 10 years post release.
These provisions also apply to any person found not guilty by reason of insanity or disability but who is found to have done the act that would attract a sentence of over 12 months.
Failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply or providing false information is an offence which could attract a maximum five year sentence.
With regard to addresses where somebody regularly stays; this could mean that you would have to give the names of all family or friends or hotels where an individual may stay the night. It will lead to the further isolation of people as their friends or family may not want to have that kind of attention from the authorities.
There are many ways in which the person could commit a notification offence unintentionally, and the capacity for confusion as to when they must notify the authorities is large, e.g. if a hotel booking goes wrong and s/he has to stay somewhere else, or if s/he has to change travel plans due to some weather emergency, should the person notify.
There is no opportunity for the person’s inclusion in the list to be reviewed or appealed.
Notification Orders can apply to a foreign national who was convicted of a "corresponding foreign offence" but is in the UK, and can apply to a UK national convicted abroad who returns/ is deported to the UK. (53) A ‘corresponding foreign offence" is one that would fall under terrorism laws in the UK or the offence took place in the course of an act of terrorism or was for the purposes of terrorism. The person must receive a sentence of 12 months or more or would have done in the UK. It is possible to appeal against the decision to make a notification order for a "corresponding foreign offence," on the basis that the facts are wrong or that there is not a corresponding offence or puts the prosecution to proof.
The definition of corresponding foreign offence is so wide that normal acts of political activism could come within its ambit.
Anyone subject to the notification scheme must notify the police if they intend to travel abroad including date of departure, the country(ies) they are travelling to, their point of arrival and any other information about the person’s departure or movements outside the UK as required by regulations (as yet not made but must be approved by parliament). If they return, they must notify the police.
Specific to each individual, Foreign Travel Restrictions (54) can be ordered which ban a person from travelling to certain countries or only allowing them to travel to certain countries or even ban them from travelling outside the UK at all.
The first two parts would only work if the person returned to the UK and it could be proved they went somewhere they should not. Will MI6 track people or will they ask foreign governments to track individuals?
Part 5 – Asset freezing proceedings (56-63)
This new regime currently only applies to UN terror lists of designated organisations or individuals. (Will this be amended at a later date to include US Treasury or UK lists.)
In deciding how the proceedings should be formulated the Judge should balance the need for the subject of proceedings to be ‘properly reviewed’ (i.e. fair proceedings) AND that information should not be disclosed that is contrary to the public interest. (Note public interest not national security)
The following parts that can be varied when balancing these two things:-
The first time the power is to be used the Lord Chancellor should decide how the proceedings should be formulated. The LC must then lay this before parliament and they must be approved by both houses within 40 days (not including recess etc). The LC must consult the Lord Chief Justice first.
Treasury can make an application in private to not disclose evidence. Special advocates would represent the other side. If a judge agrees not to disclose evidence then he may ask the Treasury to provide a summary of the evidence for the defence. If the judge refuses to agree to a Treasury application and the Treasury elect not to disclose that evidence or to provide a summary, then the judge can direct that the Treasury cannot rely on the evidence.
However, where there is evidence that would undermine the Treasury’s case or support the defence’s case, the judge has no power to compel the Treasury to disclose evidence that he knows exists and that undermines the Treasury’s case.
Part 6 – Inquests and Inquiries
Coroners’ inquests can take place without a jury if the Home Secretary authorises it because it is in the interest of national security or the interest of the relationship between the UK and another country or in the public interest (64)
Note that the reasons for secret inquests are extremely broad and includes diplomatic considerations. This is a way for the police, security, and armed forces to avoid public scrutiny in cases ranging from deaths in police custody, repeats of the Jean-Charles de Menezes killing, the death of people like Baha Mousa in Iraq, and inquests into the deaths of British Service Personnel.
This clause will apply to all inquests that have started when the legislation is passed and all future inquests. The specially appointed coroner can be ‘parachuted’ into any ongoing inquest and take over proceedings.
‘Activist’ coroners (like the coroner currently conducting inquests in the deaths of British soldiers) could be dismissed by the Home Secretary. Will this amount ot Interference in the judiciary?
Part 7 - Miscellaneous provisions
This will allow cases normally prosecuted as incitement to racial hatred etc, to be prosecuted as ‘terrorist’ offences.
The definition has been expanded to include voluntary workers, trustees of charities, and even people on work experience. This may have been designed to catch people working for small charities that send aid to, or conduct development work in, conflict areas.
Part 8 – Definitions
13 March 2008
Farhat Khan, a renowned asylum seeker, threatened with deportation while at the same time being invited to the Queen's Christmas party, speaks on: 'Asylum - sanctuary or slavery: the treatment of asylum seekers in 21st century Britain'.
Thursday 13 March 2008, 6-7pm
Salford University, Mary Seacole Lecture Theatre, Allerton Building, Frederick Rd, Salford M6 6PU
To attend please email: Humanrights-Espach@salford.ac.uk or leave a message at 0161 295 6794.
4 March 2008
A demonstration will be held outside the Court of Appeal as it prepares to hear a case brought by Liberty asking for a judicial review of the government's refusal to hold a public inquiry into the disturbance at Harmondsworth in November 2006.
Tuesday 4 March 2008, time to be announced
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Demonstration called by: The Support the Harmondsworth 4 Campaign which is supported by London No Borders, Barbed-Wire Britain, Campaign Against Racism and Fascism, Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism, the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, All African Women's Group, North West Asylum Seekers Defence Group, Women of Colour in the Global Women's Strike and Payday Men's Network. For more information email: harmondsworth4@riseup.net
By Institute of Race Relations News Team, February 28, 2008
On February 22, 2008, campaigners celebrated outside the London offices of Kalyx,[1] the firm that runs the Harmondsworth detention centre, after four men were acquitted of charges in connection with a disturbance at the centre in November 2006.
The jury at Southwark Crown Court, after deliberating for days, found the four men not guilty of conspiracy to commit violent disorder. One man was found not guilty on two counts of damaging property, and another was found not guilty on one count of damaging property. No evidence of a plot or conspiracy was proved.
On the day of the disturbance, a Chief Inspector of Prisons report was published which, according to Anne Owers, was "undoubtedly the poorest report we have issued on an immigration removal centre". The disturbance seems to have been a spontaneous reaction by detainees already feeling resentment and despair at the conditions of their detention. At the end of the trial the judge commented that "one might feel sympathy" for people detained in immigration detention centres.
A spokesperson for the Support the Harmondsworth 4 Campaign told IRR News: "It should be Kalyx and the Home Office on trial. These four men have been made scapegoats for a government intent on criminalising innocent people who have committed no crime."
[1] In October 2000 the Immigration and Nationality Directorate awarded an 8-year contract to build and manage Harmondsworth to UK Detention Services (UKDS). In October 2006, UKDS renamed itself Kalyx. In December 2006 Kalyx was fined over £5 million by the government for unspecified "performance failures". Kalyx also operates HMP Forest Bank at Salford, HMP Bronzefield at Ashford, Middlesex and HMP Peterborough. For further information, email the Support the Harmondsworth Campaign at: harmondsworth4@riseup.net