Terror law an affront to justice - judge (UK)

[struggle4progress]

Control orders breach human rights

Vikram Dodd and Carlene Bailey
Thursday April 13, 2006
The Guardian

<snip> At least 11 control orders have been issued, allowing the government to restrict the liberty and movement of people it claims endanger public safety because of their involvement in terrorism but who can not be tried in the courts.

The judge said the anti-terrorism measures were "conspicuously unfair" and dismissed supposed safeguards of suspects' rights as a "thin veneer of legality". He had to say "loud and clear" that the laws were unfair otherwise "the court would be failing in its duty."

But he said the laws passed had been drafted in a way that prevented the courts overturning control orders.

In this case, the judge said, Charles Clarke had made his decision to issue the order based on "one-sided information", but he was "unable to envisage the circumstances" allowing the court to quash the home secretary's decision. As a result, the judge said, he would have to leave the order in place, even though he ruled that it contravened human rights law. <snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,,1752864,00.html?gusrc=rss

[Kutjara]

1. These 'control orders' are an absolute hoot.

They allow the police to issue orders to individuals, forbidding them to engage in perfectly legal activities (like accessing the Internet or withdrawing money from the bank). If a person who has been issued with such an order breaches it, the penalties can be severe. So you can essentially be thrown in jail for going shopping.

This was one of those laws that simply whizzed through the UK Parliament on the back of post 9/11 fear and loathing.

Well done, Britannia.

[struggle4progress]

2. Sounds like "banning" in South Africa under apartheid. eom

[Kutjara]

3. Damned close to it. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. The quicker this goes up the legal system the better

I suspect it will have to go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, who are the only people who can force the government to change the law. All the British courts can do is note the law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act - and Clarke and Blair will be too pig-headed to change just because of that (and they'll relish the extra time it takes to get it through the court system).