The UK Government has acted unlawfully under the Human Rights Convention in interning nine 'terrorist suspects' without charge or trial - some of them since before Christmas 2001 - under the Anti-terrorism Crime & Security Act. That was the finding of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) this afternoon, when it ruled that the Government has breached Article 14 of the Human Rights Convention - the provision guarding against discrimination - in its implementation of indefinite detention powers in the Anti-terrorism Act.

The SIAC judges (headed by the Commission's President, Mr Justice Collins) found that the derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights - allowing people to be detained without charge or trial - was justified, but that as the new powers only concerned foreign nationals, there was a clear breach of the discrimination protections.
Liberty led the intervention at this month's hearings, arguing that these arbitrary detention powers were unlawful and discriminatory.

John Wadham, director of Liberty, said:

"Liberty has argued all along that these detentions are discriminatory, wrong in principle and a violation of human rights and we very much welcome this judgment.

"The Government should use this opportunity to revoke this unfair law and end internment. Those detained should be charged if there is any evidence against them, or released immediately if not.

"This has always been a manifestly unjust and discriminatory power. The Government knows it cannot intern British citizens, but thinks it acceptable to intern foreign nationals. The Human Rights Convention rightly ensures that this type of discrimination cannot be lawful.

"We do not see such a state of imminent and extreme national emergency as to justify locking people up without charge or trial, not for anything they have done but for something someone thinks they might do. The Home Office says there is - but it refuses to tell either the people it is imprisoning or the general public why: that evidence was all confined to secret sessions. Our fight against these sweeping State powers will continue".

The judgment means a core part of the the Anti-terrorism, Crime & Security Act is contrary to the Human Rights Convention. These suspects are being held in violation of their human rights; but their release is unlikely to be imminent.

BACKGROUND
The judgment concerns the lawfulness of the detention of several alleged 'terrorist suspects' under the internment powers created in the Anti-terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001. To introduce these powers, the UK derogated (effectively opted out) from the Article 5 protection against detention without charge or trial of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Liberty was given special permission to intervene at the hearing and to make submissions contending that the derogation is unlawful and that the power is discriminatory.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) tribunal comprises three judges, including SIAC president Mr Justice Collins.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission process is a limited and partly secret process.

The person and his or her lawyer are not entitled to see all the evidence and the appeal panel has to exclude them when it hears that secret material.

The case [justifying their detention by justifying their definition as a person reasonably suspected by the Home Secretary of being terrorists] does not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence does not apply and the usual quality checks on the evidence are missing.