Backlash will scupper anti-terrorism Bill in the Lords

[Guest guest]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article313205.ece

C

Backlash will scupper anti-terrorism Bill in the Lords

Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:11:21 -0400

 

 

 

 

Backlash will scupper anti-terrorism Bill in the Lords, say critics

 

 

By Nigel Morris and Robert Verkaik

Published: 17 September 2005

 

 

 

A legal and political backlash was growing last night against the

Government's new anti-terrorism laws, which include provision for jail

for " glorifying " terrorists.

 

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, was warned that the

heavily-criticised proposal could be defeated in the House of Lords.

To avert a bruising parliamentary battle, he also looks certain to

retreat over the proposed detention of terror suspects without charge

for up to three months.

 

Tony Blair made a passionate defence of the controversial package

yesterday, dismissing accusations that it seriously undermined civil

liberties. But Lord Morris, a former Attorney General under Mr Blair,

predicted that judges and lawyers in the Lords would " examine it [the

Bill] very carefully " .

 

Lord Morris said of the proposed extension of the detention period

from 14 to 90 days: " I think the police have to prove very carefully

and to the satisfaction of legislators that this extension is needed. "

 

Lord Ackner, a former law lord, added that the Government had gone too

far in its plans for curbing freedom of speech. " I get the impression

we are taking this too far, that there is a great risk that freedom of

speech is going to be curtailed because of the breadth of some of the

clauses, " he said.

 

While there was a " prima facie case " for extending the length of

detention under the existing terrorism laws, three months was too

long, Lord Ackner said.

 

" With the ordinary custodial reduction it represents a six months'

prison sentence. So this really raises the risk of producing a form of

internment. "

 

Lord Ackner said that if the proposal was to become law, then there

must be a right of appeal to a circuit judge.

 

Ian Macdonald QC, a former special advocate cleared to hear secret

service intelligence against foreign terror suspects, described

proposals as crude and vague.

 

He said: " I'm not sure how you would square some of this with freedom

of speech. If we don't enter a debate with some of these people

[Muslim exremists], then how can we compete for their hearts and

minds? What is needed is proper intelligence to defeat

religious-inspired terrorism. "

 

Kevin Martin, president of the Law Society, said he believed that the

current law against incitement was already sufficiently broad.

 

He said: " In view of the already broad nature of incitement offences,

we are unclear that a new offence of " glorification " would take the

matter any further. We also think that it would be evidentially very

complex. "

 

Nor does the Law Society believe that the case is made out for

extending detention from 14 days. Mr Martin said: " Powers to detain

are already longer in terrorism cases. However, if there were to be

any extension, it must be granted and reviewed by a High Court judge. "

 

Mr Blair told Radio 4's Today programme: " Virtually every country in

Europe, following terrorist acts, has been toughening up their

legislation.

 

" And the fact that someone who comes into our country, and maybe seeks

refuge here, the fact that we say if, when you are here, you want to

stay here, play by the rules, play fair, don't start inciting people

to go and kill other innocent people in Britain.

 

" I think that when people say this is an abrogation of our traditional

civil liberties; I think it is possible to exaggerate that. I mean, as

far as I know people have always accepted that with rights come

responsibilities. "

 

Within Downing Street there was irritation yesterday that a leaked

early draft of a letter by Mr Clarke appeared to reveal his private

reservations over the planned new detention period.

 

Following a report that he was to be replaced as Home Secretary, Mr

Blair has assured him that his job is safe. But there are tensions

between No 10 and the Home Office over the handling of the

anti-terrorism legislation.

 

MPs were stunned when the Prime Minister chose 5 August, while Mr

Clarke was on holiday, to announce fresh proposals to protect Britain

from attack.

 

The Home Secretary has also been noticeably more emollient to judges

than Mr Blair, although Whitehall officials insist suggestions that

there is a division between them have been exaggerated. However, one

civil liberties source insisted last night: " There's a turf war: it's

going back and forth. "

 

 

 

 

 

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1572133,00.html

 

 

MPs may force retreat by Clarke

 

· Cross-party concern over detention and definition

· Compromise expected to avert Commons revolt

 

Michael White, Richard Norton-Taylor and Duncan Campbell

Saturday September 17, 2005

The Guardian

 

Charles Clarke, the home secretary, is braced to make further concessions on his

latest anti-terrorism bill in the face of guaranteed resistance to its most

sensitive clauses from MPs and peers who are determined to amend or - if

necessary - defeat it.

 

Cross-party concern is focused on the two most controversial aspects of this

week's draft: the proposal to extend the power to hold suspects from 14 days to

up to three months, and the sheer difficulty of defining what it means to

" glorify " acts of terrorism.

 

Article continues

Joan Ruddock, a member of Labour's backbench parliamentary committee, said

yesterday: " There may be sympathy for the police and security services in the

huge difficulties they face, but for many MPs three months will be a bridge too

far. "

 

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, said he was also keen to defend the

ancient Magna Carta privilege of habeas corpus - that a prisoner be brought to

court quickly, not held for months on end.

 

Compromise on the draft bill is regarded at Westminster as virtually a foregone

conclusion, with Clarke aides pointing out that it is a draft bill, precisely

designed to be discussed and altered to uphold the fragile cross-party

consensus.

 

Mr Clarke's draughtsmen are expected to struggle to define " glorification " of

terrorism to get that through the Commons, where a second reading of the bill

will probably come in late October or November - let alone the Lords. The last

such Commons vote, on the control orders bill, saw the then-Labour majority cut

from 161 to 14, with 60 Labour MPs rebelling.

 

Yesterday the veteran ex-attorney general, Lord Morris QC, a Labour loyalist,

said it would be difficult to convince a jury to convict someone on such a vague

concept as " glorification " .

 

Mr Davis would prefer to strengthen the anti-terrorism laws by allowing the use

of phone-tap evidence in court, believing that is the best way to avoid

alienating moderate Muslim opinion.

 

The government's anti-terrorism package is also in difficulty over plans to sign

a " no torture " agreement with Algeria to protect individuals deported from

Britain, with Whitehall officials admitting " there's not even a date " in

prospect for such a memorandum of understanding.

 

Sixteen men now in custody face the prospect of expulsion to Algeria, including

those acquitted by a jury at the so-called " ricin plot " trial earlier this year.

 

Gareth Peirce, lawyer for some of the defendants, said yesterday the government

had simply repeated the original allegations against the men as the reason why

they should be expelled from Britain.

 

" In the world league table of torturers [Algeria] frequently heads the list, "

she said, adding that the government's actions " make a mockery of jury trials

and verdicts, a mockery of judicial decisions and a mockery of guarantees

intended to be inalienable " .

 

· The police and emergency services are planning to set up a new " knowledge

cell " as a result of the often-scrambled information that emerged from the

London bombings of July 7 and 21. It would aim to provide accurate information

to the police and other services and to the media and any businesses affected.