Counter-Terrorism Bill

From Democracywiki

The Home Secretary (Jacqui Smith) has tabled a public bill in the House of Commons regarding terrorism in Britain, the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The Bill had its Second Reading on 1st April 2008.

What the Bill does

Our View We deeply regret the government’s determination to press through Parliament an attempt to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. We urge members of both Houses and all parties to reject this dangerous and unnecessary measure. We accept that the government must take seriously its responsibility to protect the British people against the real threat to their lives that modern terrorism presents. But its response must also take care to protect the liberties that have long been hallmarks of life in this country. We believe that the escalation in the period of pre-charge detention – from the five days current in 1997 when the New Labour government came to power to seven, and then 14, and finally 28 days in 2007 – has effectively rendered the precious principle of habeas corpus obsolete. None of the rises in the period of detention has been justified by evidence of need. The government’s counter-terrorism legislation since 2000 and the attempt to extend pre-charge detention to 90 days have also undermined one of the New Labour’s greatest achievements so far – the 1998 Human Rights Act that aimed to place a protective floor under civil and political rights in the UK. The attempt to extend pre-charge detention further undermines the government’s plans to build on the Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights and to consider the case for a written constitution.

• Extends the period that terror suspects can be held for without charge from 28 days to 42 days
• Enables post-charge questioning of terror suspects
• Imposes requirements on those convicted of terrorist offences to let authorities know where they are living and of any change in their circumstances
• Enhances sentences for those committing offences with terrorist connections
• Provides for inquests and inquiries to be held without a jury

Second Reading Debate

Whilst the debate included discussion of all the issues above, it focused primarily on the clause to extend the period that terror suspects can be held without charge from the current 28 days to 42 days. This clause proved controversial and as the debate unfolded it became clear that the clause would be fiercely contested at Committee stage.

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, opened the debate. Her speech focused on the need to give law enforcement agencies the powers to pre-empt terrorist attacks. She stressed the scale, complexity and ever-changing nature of modern terrorism. It was her argument that whilst to date it had not been necessary to extend the 28-day pre-charge detention period, such a need might arise in the future. The Bill was designed, according to Ms Smith, to give the authorities powers to deal with such an emergency situation were it to arise. For start of her speech, see here.

Distinguishing between terrorism and other types of crime, she stated

“Upon arrest (in a normal crime), only a few days may be needed to question the suspect before a decision is taken on whether to charge them with an offence. Terrorism is different. Because of the severe consequences of an attack, the police and the Security Service often need to intervene before a planned crime takes place.”

To illustrate the complexity of modern terrorism, Ms Smith highlighted the differences between past and present terrorist cases:

“In 2001 the police investigated the last major IRA case, in which they had to analyse the content of one computer and a handful of floppy discs. The suspects used their own names, and their activities were confined to the Republic of Ireland and the UK. In 2004 the police and the security services had to investigate Dhiren Barot, the key conspirator in an al-Qaeda operation in the UK. The case led to the seizure of 270 computers, 2,000 computer discs and a total of 8,224 exhibits.”

In order to combat this, Ms Smith argued that police and prosecutors needed the tools to deal with the evolving nature of terrorism. She stated that since the beginning of 2007, 58 individuals had been convicted of terrorist offences, half of whom pleaded guilty to their charges. She also stated that around 2000 individuals were being monitored by the police and security services in the UK.

Furthermore, Ms Smith stressed the international nature of modern terrorist operations and the difficulty in decrypting multiple encrypted computer devices.

In support of her position, Ms Smith quoted the chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Robert Quick, whom she claimed believed a situation might arise in the future which would render

“existing pre-charge detention limits inadequate.” She also claimed that the president of ACPO, Ken Jones, supported the Bill.

In response to the suggestion that the Civil Contingencies Act could be used in emergency situations to extend the terror limit, Ms Smith said she

“agree(s) with the Home Affairs Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Lord Carlile that that Act is not appropriate for these purposes.” Keith Vaz, Chair of the Select Committee, spoke in support of this position.

Ms Smith was challenged by Elfyn Llwyd who pointed out that The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) did not believe an extension to 42 days was required.

Ms Smith responded that although she acknowledged the powers had not been needed to date, they may be needed in the future, saying “The most important issue is whether people feel that in all circumstances in the future there would never be a time when 28 days would be insufficient.”

On behalf of the Opposition, David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, quoted Benjamin Franklin, who declared

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. He argued in his speech that the proposal to extend detention without charge up to 42 days

“gives up essential liberties without delivering any additional, even temporary, safety. In fact, it is likely to make us less, not more, safe.”

Mr Davis compared the UK’s pre-charge detention period to those of other common-law countries: Australia, which allows 12 days’ detention without charge, Canada, which allows one day, the United States, two days, and even China, 37 days.

Mr Davis argued an increase to 42 days was unnecessary because the police could use other methods including surveillance, control orders and post-charge questioning. He also stated that he had obtained legal advice from David Penwick QC which concluded that the

Civil Contingencies Act could be used to extend the pre-charge detention at a time of a “nightmare hypothetical scenario” imagined by the government.

In addition, Mr Davis claimed that in a terrorist case it is not necessary to have a 50 per cent probability of conviction before charge and that in such cases the criterion is reasonable suspicion and he therefore questioned

“what is the criterion for holding beyond 28 days?”

It was furthermore argued by Mr Davis that the government’s proposals would only serve to drive Muslims into the hands of extremists and to limit the flow of intelligence from local communities. He quoted Lord Dear, who termed the Bill a

“propaganda coup for Al Qaeda.”

In addition, Mr Davis cited the case of Lotfi Raissi, an Algerian pilot whose life he claimed had been “shattered” after being held without charge by British authorities for 5 months on suspicion of having trained pilots involved in the 9/11 attacks on the US.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, Chris Huhne argued that his party would “fight tooth and nail” against the extension of the pre-charge detention period beyond 28 days. He pointed out that problems with encrypted devices could be dealt with under The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Mr Huhne compared the Bill with the Internment policy enacted in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. He also attacked the government’s proposals to have Parliament decide whether individual cases should use the extension beyond 28 days, claiming this would mix the legislature and judiciary.

Keith Vaz spoke, summarising the findings of the Select Committee he chaired, which he said concluded

“that neither the police nor the Government had made a convincing case that the limit of 28 days was inadequate,” but that such powers might be needed in future due to the number and complexity of cases. He called for a shorter time for parliament to scrutinise individual cases of extending pre-trial detention beyond 28 days. Mr Vaz also asked that such powers only be used in a time of genuine emergency and that parliament act proportionately in dealing with terrorism.

A great proportion of MPs involved in the debate spoke against the extension of the pre-charge detention period. John Heppell asked whether the Civil Contingenices Act was not in itself draconian.

George Galloway argued that the threat from the IRA was greater than the current threat from Islamic terrorism. He also stressed the negative consequences this legislation would have on Muslim communities.

Patrick Mercer spoke from personal experience in Northern Ireland and claimed that Internment had made matters worse and that he found 7 days pre-charge detention sufficient during the troubles in Northern Ireland.

David Winnick pointed out that 4 days was the maximum pre-charge detention for other crimes and that this proposal was disproportionate.

Jonathan Djanogly suggested judicial scrutiny of post-charge questioning.

Joan Humble criticised turning coroner’s inquests into secret inquiries, with no provision for appeal.

Bob Marshall-Andrews strongly questioned Parliament’s new powers and asked if they had become the judiciary.