Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

When the Home Secretary launched the review in the House of Commons in June, she also announced that Liberty had accepted her express invitation to contribute to what the organisation described as a ‘once in a generation opportunity for reform’.

Liberty also introduced two new clients who are facing potential charges for doing their jobs as filmmakers covering security policy.

Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy, said:

"After years of fighting unjust and counterproductive postures, Liberty welcomes this new opportunity for reflection and correction in security policy. UnBritish scandals like punishment without charge and blanket erosion of privacy must now be replaced with effective targeted surveillance and prosecution within the law."

The response, submitted to the Home Office on 11 August 2010 and released to the public today, urges the Home Secretary to:

• Scrap the unfair and unsafe control order house arrest regime which has not enhanced national security but cost the taxpayer £13 million over three years.
• Revise the Terrorist Asset Freezing Regime so that it no longer targets those who have never been arrested, charged or convicted in relation to a terrorism offence.
• Overhaul Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 so that exceptional stop and search powers without reasonable suspicion may be justified only in very limited circumstances.
• Thoroughly review RIPA surveillance powers and look at restricting their use to law enforcement agencies.
• Respect the rule against torture in deportation policy and urge countries in receipt of British aid, trade and security cooperation to refrain from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.
• Define restrictions on free speech and association (aimed at terrorist organisations) more tightly.
• Reduce the pre-charge detention period for terror suspects
• Make intercept evidence admissible in criminal proceedings so that terror suspects can face firm but fair criminal prosecution.

Liberty’s new clients, Fred Grace and Gemma Atkinson of Fat Rat Films, are independent filmmakers who are facing possible contempt of court proceedings for interviewing a terror suspect who was under bail conditions. Grace and Atkinson made a documentary about Hussain Saleh Hussain Alsamamara, a Jordanian who was arrested by police in 2004. His bail immigration conditions include a severe curfew, electronic tagging, no access to the internet and restrictions on his use of communication equipment. He also may not have any electronic storage devices on his premises. By allowing the filming Alsamamara breached this bail condition.

Whilst SIAC extended his bail, at the hearing Mr Justice Mitting said that consideration should be given to contempt of court proceedings against the filmmakers. This is now being considered by the Attorney General’s office. If found guilty Grace and Atkinson could face a jail sentence.

James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said:

"The War on Terror has been synonymous with sweeping up the innocent with the guilty and undermining the values that democrats hold dear. Fred and Gemma are filmmakers facing punishment for doing their job in a free society. I feel certain that the new Law Officers will not let this continue."

Journalists contact: Liberty’s press office on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. For a full copy of the report please contact Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128 or download 'From War to Law' as a PDF

2. Fred Grace and Gemma Atkinson’s film on Hussain Saleh Hussain Alsamamara was shown on Newsnight on the 16th June 2010.

3. The UK has the longest pre-charge detention limit in the western world. Pre-charge detention refers to the length of time you can be locked-up and questioned before you face a charge. In that time you might never be told what you are accused of, or be able to challenge the evidence against you. No one has been held for more than 14 days in the UK since July 2007.

4. Control orders were brought in by the previous Government under the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act after the Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention without charge for foreign terror suspects in Belmarsh prison violated their human rights. Control orders (applicable to British and non-nationals alike) severely restrict who a person can meet, where they can go and all cases have involved electronic tagging. Restrictions include lengthy curfews and bans on unauthorised visitors and internet access. Control orders can last indefinitely. The person does not have to be accused of any crime and does not have to be told why they are under suspicion.

5. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows “areas” (not defined) to be designated for stop and search without suspicion by a police constable. Designation is by an Assistant Chief Constable (subsequently endorsed by the Home Secretary). Designations may be made in secret and no judicial or parliamentary involvement is required. Designations last 28 days but have been made on a rolling basis for years at a time. Whole police areas may be designated and during the height of the Iraq War, these included several counties of England and Wales. The test for designation is not “necessity” but mere “expedience”. This power was found to be unlawful January 2010 following Liberty’s successful challenge in the Court of Human Rights. The use of this power to stop and search individuals was temporarily suspended by the Home Secretary last month.

6. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) regulates the use and access of targeted surveillance by public bodies. Liberty has long been calling for a comprehensive review of RIPA powers and authorisation processes and have asked for the following:

a. All interception of communications and intrusive surveillance to be authorised by judicial warrant.

b. All other types of surveillance to be independently authorised and depending on the level of intrusion, some powers may require authorisation by a magistrate.

c. The number of public bodies that have access to surveillance powers to be reduced.

d. The purposes for which intrusive surveillance can be authorised to be restricted in scope.

e. An overhaul of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal procedure where most applications for review of surveillance powers must go but which is fundamentally flawed.