Control orders review and renewal
Control orders came about as a response to the House of Lords judgment in the Belmarsh case in 2004, ruling against arbitrary and indefinite detention for terrorism suspects without charge, and were introduced in the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) 2005. They were immediately imposed on the former Belmarsh prisoners. Their stated purpose is “protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism” and are imposed by the Home Secretary. The law is reviewed annually and may be either renewed or repealed. The debate for renewing these provisions will take place in parliament on 1 March and will be voted on shortly thereafter. There are currently less than a dozen control orders still in place and both foreign nationals and British citizens can be subject to them.
On 1 February 2010 a draft order for the renewal of control order powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was laid before parliament. Also presented to parliament was a review of the control order regime that was ordered last September by the Home Secretary and undertaken by government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile. That review concluded control orders were necessary for the safety of the country and “that abandoning the control orders system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security”. However, Lord Carlile is reported as having said the control order regime should only be used on a small number of cases where the information is robust, the risk serious and when a conventional criminal prosecution is not possible.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/01/carlile-backs-control-orders-terror
On 3 February, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) held a public evidence session on “Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Control Orders” at which oral evidence was given by solicitors Gareth Peirce and Sean McLoughlin and special advocates Helen Mountfield, Angus McCollough and Thomas de la Mare. The session was held to inform committee members before the forthcoming parliamentary debateon renewing the control order provisons.
Commenting on the use of secret evidence in these cases, Mr. McLoughlin stated, “The evidence we get justifying the control order is limited, and for us to take instructions from a client to address the assertions is very difficult, and for that client to be able to respond in any meaningful way. In essence his evidence is given in a vacuum because he does not know quite a lot of the case that is being alleged against him. Equally the client will be suspicious of how any information he gives may be used, and clearly if you are trying to challenge an allegation against you the allegation needs to be made to you”. The discussion covered the effects of control orders on the individuals affected and their family, the development of control orders over the past five years and other pertinent points. An uncorrected transcript of the evidence can be read at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200910/jtselect/jtrights/uc356-i/uc35602.htm
Liberty has a started a campaign against the renewal of the control order legislation. The campaign includes a public petition and asks that you lobby your MP on this issue.
