http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.ukHuman rights and civil liberties news from UK campaigning group Liberty.Liberty warns against expensive and invasive ID card schemePolicy Officer Isabella Sankey said:

"As millions of British families worry about food and mortgages, 5 billion pounds for ID cards moves from the ridiculous to the obscene. We have seen the stirring images of Americans choosing to queue for hours to register their vote. Our Home Secretary prefers the chilling picture of Britons compelled to register their fingerprints.”

The £5.6 billion compulsory ID card scheme has been unsuccessfully touted by the Government as a solution to identity theft, benefit fraud, crime, and terrorism, but is now being rolled out to targeted groups such as foreign nationals, students and airport workers.

Liberty expressed concern about the Government’s ability to safeguard individual’s intimate details on the National Identity Register after Government departments last year lost 30 million pieces of personal data, including those of 25 million child benefit claimants.

Contact: Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

Liberty’s principle concerns about the ID cards and the National ID Register include:
They will fundamentally change the relationship between individual and state.

They will have a detrimental impact on race relations and will adversely affect vulnerable groups in society.

They will intrude on privacy as the amount of information held on the database and the uses made of that information will increase dramatically.

The Government’s poor record on IT projects makes this a huge financial risk.

Liberty does not accept that ID cards will have any particular benefit:
They will have no impact on illegal immigration as asylum seekers have been required to carry ID cards since 2000.

Arguments that they will protect the UK from terrorist attack are unconvincing. The men responsible for the 9/11 and Madrid terrorist attacks had valid identification.

They will not help fight crime but will be counterproductive, as they will deflect financial and policing resources away from crime prevention and detection.

They will have minimal impact on benefit fraud, as this is usually about financial circumstances rather than identity.

Most identity fraud takes place remotely, online, over the phone or using false ‘seed’ documents (driving licences, passports and so on). Identity cards will not address this.

20081106Liberty responds to the Home Secretary’s announcement that the ID cards roll-out will be accelerated with private contractors taking sensitive biometric details.Liberty warns against expensive and unnecessary ID card schemeThe £5.6 billion compulsory ID card scheme was unsuccessfully touted by the Government as a solution to identity theft, benefit fraud, crime, and terrorism, but is now being rolled out gradually to targeted groups such as foreign nationals, students and airport workers.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“This week the Prime Minister said he doesn’t do PR but clearly the Home Secretary wasn’t listening. The public will yawn at yet another re-launch of this scheme and if the card came with loyalty points, we still wouldn’t buy it. Picking on foreigners first is divisive politics; as costly to our race relations as our purses.”

Liberty noted that the Government’s plan to require all non-EU nationals to carry ID cards by November 2008 was actually introduced through the UK Borders Act last year rather than the Identity Cards Act.

The Home Office has said that from November 2008 biometric identity cards will be compulsory for foreign nationals who come to the UK to work and study. Within the next three years, all new applicants arriving in the UK will be issued with a card. From 2009, ID cards will be issued to up to 200,000 airport workers. ID cards will be available to young people on a voluntary basis from early 2010 and available to the general public in late 2010. In 2011 all new passports will be entered on the National Identity Register either through ID cards or biometric passports. The Home Office intends to roll out compulsory ID cards through Britain by 2017.

Liberty expressed concern about the Government’s ability to safeguard individual’s intimate details on the National Identity Register after Government departments last year lost millions of people’s personal details, including those of 25 million child benefit claimants. A YouGov poll commissioned by the human rights group in September 2007 found that only 17 percent of Britons trust the authorities to keep their personal details completely confidential while 57 percent believe the UK has become a ‘surveillance society.’

Contact: Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors


Liberty’s principle concerns about the ID cards and the National ID Register include:
 
- They will fundamentally change the relationship between individual and state.

- They will have a detrimental impact on race relations and will adversely affect vulnerable groups in society.

- They will intrude on privacy as the amount of information held on the database and the uses made of that information will increase dramatically.

- The Government’s poor record on IT projects makes this a huge financial risk.


Liberty does not accept that ID cards will have any particular benefit:

- They will have no impact on illegal immigration as asylum seekers have been required to carry ID cards since 2000.

- Arguments that they will protect the UK from terrorist attack are unconvincing. The men responsible for the 9/11 and Madrid terrorist attacks had valid identification.

- They will not help fight crime but will be counterproductive, as they will deflect financial and policing resources away from crime prevention and detection.

- They will have minimal impact on benefit fraud, as this is usually about financial circumstances rather than identity.

- Most identity fraud takes place remotely, online, over the phone or using false ‘seed’ documents (driving licences, passports and so on). Identity cards will not address this.

20080924The Home Office’s anticipated announcement that ID cards will be compulsory for foreign nationals by November 2008 seeks to soften the public before making ID cards compulsory for all British nationals, Liberty warned.Liberty argues vulnerable psychiatric patients deserve same protections as prisonersLiberty is intervening in an appeal to the Law Lords by Anna Savage, whose mother committed suicide after escaping from Runwell Hospital where she had been detained under the Mental Health Act. In the two-day hearing which starts on Monday 27 October, Liberty will argue that those detained under the Mental Health Act are as vulnerable as prisoners and the State should protect them accordingly and account for injuries suffered by them.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Anna Fairclough, intervening in the case said:

‘There is no justification for a greater level of protection for prisoners than the mentally ill. Whether the state locks people up in prison or in hospital, it must take responsibility for avoidable deaths’

In the intervention brought by Liberty, Justice, Mind and Inquest it is argued that a person detained under the Mental Health Act will often be more vulnerable than a prisoner because of the sweeping powers under the Mental Health Act, and therefore the State’s obligation to them should be applied with even greater force.

The European Court of Human Rights has determined that persons held in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them. Accordingly, the State must account for any injuries suffered in custody. If it is established that the authorities knew or should have known of a real and immediate risk to the life of an individual and failed to take measures to avert that risk then they will be in breach of the positive obligation under Article 2 (the right to life).

Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3677 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The Law Lords will hear South Essex Partnership NHS Trust and Anna Savage and Inquest, Justice, Liberty and Mind on the 27 and 28 October. The judgment will be reserved. For a copy of Liberty’s intervention contact mairiclareR@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. On 5 July 2004 Carol Savage committed suicide after absconding from the Runwell Hospital where she had been detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. She was 49 years of age. She had a long history of mental illness and was detained for treatment for paranoid schizophrenia on an open acute psychiatric ward. During her time in the hospital she made a number of attempts to leave. She succeeded in leaving the hospital and walked two miles to the railway station at Wickford, where she jumped in front of a train and was killed.

3. The test for prisoners who commit suicide is the Osman test i.e. whether the state knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life and if there were steps reasonably open to it which might have averted the risk. The ECHR has not applied this test to those who die preventable deaths in ordinary hospitals and simple negligence on the part of health professionals will not normally engage the responsibility of the state. Normally the state’s responsibility in the field of health care is limited to cases of gross negligence and to ensuring a safe system, for example that doctors are registered and trained. The ECHR has, however, applied the Osman test to a prisoner being treated in an ordinary hospital.

4. Between 1997 and 2005 there were 1731 self-inflicted deaths among in-patients in psychiatric hospitals. Among patients detained under the Mental Health Act during 2005-2007, there were 120 self-inflicted deaths. The suicide rate for detained psychiatric patients is more than double that of the prison population.

20081024The same ‘right to life’ test should apply to patients detained in psychiatric hospitals as it does to prisoners, said the human rights group Liberty today.Law Lords to consider “deportation to torture” appealsLiberty is intervening in an appeal to the Law Lords by two Algerians (“RB” and “U”) facing deportation despite concerns that they may face ill-treatment or torture if returned. Two other Algerians deported in January 2007 were detained and reportedly ill-treated despite a UK-Algeria understanding that their human rights would be protected. In the three-day hearing which starts today, Liberty will argue that such “diplomatic assurances” are inherently unreliable and should carry little if any weight in deciding whether the risk of torture has been eliminated.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Corinna Ferguson, intervening in the case, said:

“It is preposterous that information supposedly proving that Algeria will provide these men a safe return must be kept secret. Our Government’s zeal for extensive secrecy is denying them full protection against the threat of torture.”

Liberty also argues that the men should be allowed to view the crux of the evidence which the Government relies on to demonstrate that they pose a threat to national security. Without this basic information, Liberty claims, the suspects cannot possibly deal effectively with the allegations against them.

The UK is obligated under the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) not to forcibly deport individuals to countries which are known human rights abusers. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights also stipulates that a state must not return a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he might be tortured. Liberty believes that the full and necessary procedural protections cannot possibly be in place when secret evidence is taken into account without ever being seen by the person concerned or his legal representatives.

Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The UK government claims that “RB” and “U” pose a threat to national security. This is based on evidence that has not been disclosed to them.

2. The UK Government has received assurances from the Algerian government regarding the treatment of “RB” and “U”, however, the assurances do not state that the Algerian authorities would comply with international law obligations relating to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Further, there is no agreed upon mechanism for monitoring their treatment upon return.

3. The UK Government has secured “Memoranda of Understanding” prohibiting torture or ill-treatment of detainees with Jordan, Libya and the Lebanon to return foreign nationals held in the UK to those countries. Algeria has refused to sign such an agreement.

4. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2007 voiced the following concerns about human rights in Algeria: “As well as violence committed by armed Islamist groups during the 1990s, there are numerous documented allegations of human rights abuses by the Algerian security forces and state-armed militia. These included enforced disappearances, abductions, torture and extra-judicial killings. The UK Government continues to urge the Algerian Government to comply fully with all its obligations under international human rights law, including the investigation of human rights violations.” www.fco.gov.uk

5. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) is an immigration tribunal empowered to hear appeals by foreign nationals facing deportation because they are accused of posing a threat to the national security of the UK. SIAC is allowed to conduct closed hearings which exclude the deportee and legal representatives.
20081023Details of Algeria’s human rights record should not be subject to secret hearings by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) when determining if Algerian nationals are to be returned to the risk of torture, said the human rights group Liberty today.Liberty brings nationwide campaign against the “Mosquito” to Plymouth City CouncilJoined by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Liberty will argue that the mosquito is degrading and discriminatory because it affects all young people, not just those engaged in anti-social behaviour.

Plymouth City Council is holding the hearing in response to a petition brought by six 15-year-old Tamarside Community College students who asked for an investigation into the mosquito. The petition was initially rejected by Plymouth Cabinet member Peter Brookshaw.

Liberty’s Legal Director James Welch said:

“These devices are a sonic weapon directed against children. They have no place in a civilized society. How can we teach young people about dignity and respect if we treat all of them as trouble-makers?”

In May 2008, Liberty and a local youth in Lancashire convinced a Co-op store to curtail the use of the mosquito because of the possible effects on children from a nearby school for autistic students. The Co-op said in a statement: “The Co-operative Group is removing all Mosquito devices and will replace these with its classical music system where appropriate.” However, reports from Plymouth indicate that the Co-op stores in the area continue to use the mosquito device.

Liberty supports the “Buzz Off” campaign, spearheaded by young people and supported by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Groundwork and the National Youth Agency, which calls for an end to the use of mosquito devices. Liberty has campaigned to ban the mosquito device since it was introduced in the UK in January 2006. An estimated 3,500 of the devices are in use in England in shopping centres, parks and shops.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. BUZZ OFF is a partnership between the National Youth Agency, Groundwork’s Young People Friendly Neighbourhoods project in Corby, 11 MILLION – led by the Children’s Commissioner for England – and Liberty http://www.buzzoffcampaign.com

2. On 27 June 2008, Corby and East Northamptonshire MP Phil Hope, in association with youngsters from Exeter estate in Corby, asked 100 people in secondary schools and tenants' and residents' associations in Corby for their opinions on the mosquito devices. Eighty-two percent of residents who completed the survey said the devices should be banned or regulated, and that the best way to deal with anti-social behaviour is to have more PCSOs and more for youngsters to do.

3. On 23 June 2008, the City of Edinburgh Council voted to ban the Mosquito ultrasonic youth deterrent system.

4. On 13 June 2008, Kent County Council banned the installation of the Mosquito device in its buildings.

5. On 28 April 2008, the Thames Valley Police Authority announced it would create guidance to specify the limited types of scenario where mosquito devices could be used.

6. On 1 April 2008, Socialist European MPs publicly condemned the use of the mosquito devices in the UK and urged European countries to ban them.

7. On 26 February 2008, Home Office Minister Lord Westhead said when asked about the Government’s policy on the mosquito device in a Parliamentary Question: “The Home Office encourages local agencies to consider the full range of innovations, schemes and practices intended to reduce crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. It is for local agencies such as the police and local authorities to decide on the most appropriate interventions to tackle anti-social behaviour based on their knowledge of what works best locally, adopting a tiered approach to tackling anti-social behaviour using a blend of measures to provide a proportionate response.The Home Office does not recommend or promote any commercial ultrasonic dispersal device or venture and at the present time does not have any plans to take further action on this matter.”

20080902At a special hearing on Tuesday 26 August, Liberty will urge Plymouth City Council to ban the “Mosquito device,” which forces young people out of public areas by emitting a high-pitched squeal audible to under 25 year olds.Mother facing separation from her son under Shari’a law granted refuge by Law LordsThe human rights group Liberty argued that the mother’s right to a family life and to gender equality require that she not be returned to Lebanon, where her ex-husband would automatically be granted full custody rights over her son under Shari’a law.

Liberty’s Legal Director James Welch, who intervened in the case, said:

“How can the government speak of equal treatment in one breath and seek to deport mother and child to face separation under Shari’a law in another? The Law Lords have rightly upheld basic protections which must be available to us all.”

The mother, “EM”, arrived in the United Kingdom in December 2004 with her son, who was born in July 1996, and claimed asylum. She had obtained a divorce from her allegedly violent husband, who reportedly ended her first pregnancy by hitting her in the stomach with a heavy vase, in the Islamic court in Lebanon and had been awarded physical custody of her son until his seventh birthday. According to the prevailing Shari’a law, after that date she would lose physical custody, which would be awarded to her husband and his family. Because she did not want to be bound by that law, she left Lebanon with her son on false documents. Following the refusal of her claim for asylum in the UK, she and her son faced expulsion to Lebanon.

In an intervention heard by the Law Lords on 21 July 2008, Liberty and Justice argued that the automatic and permanent separation of a mother from her child under Shari’a law, following her expulsion to Lebanon, amounts to a flagrant breach of the mother’s (and child’s) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights - Article 8, the right to a family life, and Article 14, which prohibits discrimination.

“EM” appealed to the Law Lords to determine that in this “foreign” case (in which the act of a government removing a person from its territories would lead to that person’s human rights being violated in the territory to which she has been sent) her right to a family life would be so severely violated that she should be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom.
Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The Law Lords decision in EM (Lebanon) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department and AF and Justice and Liberty was handed down on 22 October 2008. For a copy of Liberty’s intervention contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. The contention that, if returned to the Lebanon, EM would automatically lose custody of her child is not in dispute. A written report by an expert in Islamic law and customs relating to marriage, divorce and child custody confirmed that, in accordance with the principle of Islamic law that “the male is seen as the leader of the family unit”, legal custody of a child lies with the father. In recognition of “the infant’s need for female care” physical custody is given to the mother until the age of custodial transfer, generally set at the age of seven, but thereafter reverts automatically to the father.
20081022A Lebanese woman who fled her abusive husband to retain custody of their son will be allowed to remain in the UK following a significant House of Lords’ ruling today.VICTORY FOR LIBERTY'S CHARGE OR RELEASE CAMPAIGNIn an emergency statement to MPs shortly afterwards, the Home Secretary said that the counter-terrorism bill would continue its journey through parliament without the 42 day measure. The government will publish a bill containing the 42 day plan; this bill will be held in reserve to be introduced should there be a terrorist emergency.

Highlights from the House of Lords debate

The vote followed a three-hour debate dominated by opponents of 42 days from all quarters of the Lords. There were 24 Labour rebels including two former Lord Chancellors, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton, as well as Baroness Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, Justice Lord Woolf, former Lord Chief Justice and Lord Condon, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Lord Falconer, dismissed the government's arguments as "fanciful", telling peers he had changed his mind after supporting plans to detain terror suspects without charge for 90 days in 2005. He said:

"The idea that extending [the detention period] from 28 days to 42 days is going to make a difference is utterly fanciful."

Lord Dear, a former West Midlands chief constable, told peers:

“There is almost universal opposition to what the Government proposes.

"It almost beggars belief that any administration could embark on such a course.”

Lady Neville-Jones, the shadow security minister and former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, condemned the plans as "unnecessary, undesirable and unworkable''.

And Baroness Mallalieu, a Labour peer, said that while she was in the "uncomfortable" position of being forced to vote against her party, the plan was: "dangerous, wrong and completely and wholly unnecessary in practice."

A cross-party political and public campaign

With your help and support, Liberty's award winning Charge or Release campaign has been running for over a year. We have consistently urged the Government to drop these damaging proposals and have condemned the measures as wrong in principle, unnecessary and counter-productive.

Liberty has been overwhelmed by public and parliamentary support for Charge or Release, a true cross-party political and public campaign against this unnecessary and divisive policy.

Support for Charge or Release has come all corners and from across the globe. Supporters have included Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, UNITE, UNISON, CWU, National Union of Journalists, the General Synod, journalists and columnists from a wide range of newspapers, senior legal opinion, the four London Mayoral candidates, the UN Human Rights Committee, the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner, the two main opposition parties and a large number of Labour MPs and peers.

Freedom Reading

On the eve of the vote in the House of Lords, forty-two leading writers added their support for Charge or Release, displaying their opposition to the plans through forty-two poignant pieces of writing. '42 Writers for Liberty' showcases new works by leading writers including Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Julian Barnes, Mohsin Hamid, Ian Rankin, Sadie Jones, Ali Smith and A.L. Kennedy. Visit www.42writers.com to read these wonderful works.

Thank you - we did it with your support.

With your help now and into the future, should this or any future government try again, they can rest assured that Liberty will be ready and waiting.

Thank you for supporting Charge or Release and please continue to support Liberty's campaigns.
20081014The Government has dropped plans for 42 days detention. Last night saw a resounding victory for Liberty's long running Charge or Release campaign. Common sense and common decency prevailed as the Government dropped plans to detain terror suspects for 42 days without charge, following an overwhelming defeat in the House of Lords. The Upper House rejected the proposal by a devastating 191 votes.
Lords defeat Government on 42 days pre-charge detentionNow the Government must choose to drop the measure or seek a fresh vote when the Counter-Terror Bill returns to the House of Commons in November. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign has condemned the measures as wrong in principle, unnecessary and counter-productive.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The Upper House has demonstrated why Britain is the oldest unbroken democracy on Earth. Common decency says we don’t lock people up for six weeks without charge. Common sense should tell the Government that when you’re in a hole and you’ve lost the argument- stop digging.”

Forty-two leading writers, including Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Ali Smith, Julian Barnes and Ian Rankin, have joined Liberty in opposing 42 days pre-charge detention in an online calendar launched today at www.42writers.com

Liberty believes that extending pre-charge detention to 42 days is:

● Unnecessary: The Home Secretary has accepted that there has been no case to date where longer than 28 days’ detention has been needed. The Government’s only argument is that the powers might be needed in the future.

● Wrong in Principle: It would fly in the face of our basic democratic principles of justice, fairness and liberty to hold people for six weeks on the basis of police suspicion rather than hard evidence and without formally accusing them of any criminal offence. Innocent people would almost certainly be detained for long periods of time and then released without charge. Released after six weeks in police custody, the individual may well have lost their job, home and the trust of their community, friends and perhaps even family.

● Counterproductive: Unjust measures like these do not make us safer. The Home Office’s own Equality Impact Assessment states, ‘Muslim groups said that pre-charge detention may risk information being forthcoming from members of the community in the future.’

● Better Alternatives: Alternatives suggested by Liberty include: (A) allowing intercept evidence to be used in criminal trials so that the police can use existing surveillance material to support a charge; and (B) with judicial oversight, allowing the police to re-question suspects that have already been charged with an offence if new evidence comes to light suggesting that a more serious charge may be appropriate.

Liberty’s Charge or Release campaign has built a cross-party political and public campaign against the unnecessary and divisive policy, which would create injustice and undermine community relations. Liberty’s Charge or Release campaign, winner of the Public Affairs News’ Voluntary Sector Campaign of the Year in 2008, has the support of the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, UNITE, UNISON, CWU, National Union of Journalists and the General Synod.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. “42 Writers for Liberty” was organised by Simon Prosser, Publishing Director of Hamish Hamilton; Anya Serota, Publishing Director of Canongate Books, and Hari Kunzru, author of the novels THE IMPRESSIONIST, TRANSMISSION and MY REVOLUTIONS. The full list of participating writers in “42 Writers for Liberty” are: Julian Barnes; Ian Rankin; Salley Vickers; Alain de Botton; Daljit Nagra;Tahmima Anam;A.L. Kennedy; Stella Duffy; Andrew O'Hagan;Joe Dunthorne; Mohsin Hamid; Craig Taylor; Kamila Shamsie; Nadeem Aslam;Linda Grant; Monica Ali; Rachel North; Nick Laird; Jackie Kay; Toby Litt; Maria Hyland; Philip Pullman; Hisham Matar; Jenny Diski; Michel Faber; Terence Blacker; Hari Kunzru; Anne Donovan; Lisa Appignenesi; Alexander Masters; David Mitchell; Jay Griffiths; Esther Freud; Darian Leader; Bernardine Evaristo; Ann Leslie; Hardeep Singh Kohli; Nikita Lalwani; Sadie Jones;Tom Hodgkinson; Shami Chakrabarti;Ali Smith The online calendar of their new short works is on www.42writers.com

2. On 30 September 2008, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights published a heavily critical report: “Proposed 42-day pre-charge detention in the United Kingdom” which can be found on http://assembly.coe.int

3. On 11 June 2008, the House of Commons voted 315-306 to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days as proposed in the Counter-Terror Bill.

4. Liberty has pointed out that existing laws and practices undermine the argument for extending pre-charge detention periods including:

● Threshold Test - The Director of Public Prosecutions (responsible for charging decisions) has said longer pre-charge detention is unnecessary because charging practice has recently changed to help the prosecution charge terror suspects earlier. Instead of requiring enough evidence to stand a “realistic prospect of conviction” (the full test) prosecutors can now charge suspects where there is enough evidence to support a “reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence” and where it is likely that additional evidence will soon be obtained (the threshold test). The DPP has said that the threshold test is now used frequently in terrorism cases – it was only just coming into use when pre-charge detention was considered in 2005. The Director of Public Prosecutions noted in March 2008 that the conviction rate in terror cases stands at 92 percent.

● Emergency measures in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could already be triggered in a genuine emergency in which the police are overwhelmed by multiple terror plots, allowing the Government to temporarily extend pre-charge detention subject to Parliamentary and judicial oversight. Safeguards offered by Government today offer far less protection than that offered in the Civil Contingencies Act.

5. In November 2007, Liberty released a comprehensive study of terrorist pre-charge detention powers in 15 countries, including the United States, Spain, Russia, France and Turkey. Liberty’s “International Charge or Release Study”, based on advice and assistance from lawyers and academics around the world, demonstrates that the existing 28-day limit already far exceeds equivalent limits in other comparable democracies. In countries that do not have the exact concept of “pre-charge detention”, like France and Germany, lawyers qualified in those jurisdictions have identified the closest equivalent. These findings have subsequently been supported by advice received from the head of research at the Italian parliament, the French chief of counter-terrorism prosecution as well as by the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights who stated that 42 days “would be way out of line with equivalent detention limits elsewhere in Europe.”

20081013In an overwhelming defeat for the Government, the House of Lords have voted down controversial plans to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days for terror suspects by 309 - 118.'42 Writers for Liberty' opposing 42 day pre-charge detention'42 Writers for Liberty' will be launched at www.42writers.com at noon on Sunday 12 October as the House of Lords prepare to vote on the controversial legislation.

Author Philip Pullman, winner of the Carnegie Medal and the Whitbread Book of the Year Prize, writes, “…We don’t know how lucky we are, to live in a nation where police officers have all of six weeks to discover why they’ve locked us up. Ask them after 41 days why a prisoner is still behind bars, and they can honestly and innocently say, ‘No idea, mate.’ But give them that extra day, and they’ll crack it…”

Winner of the Costa Book of the Year Award, A.L. Kennedy writes, “…In 42 days we will have made you different. You may be charged, you may be released. You will always be different…”

Alain de Botton writes, “…What are the tools in Liberty’s armament? Only the ability, based on nothing more than language and reason, to provoke a spasm of conscience in the men with the guns and the keys…”

Julian Barnes, short-listed three times for the Man Booker Prize, writes, “…Claiming to defend British liberty by diminishing British liberty has become a political norm over the last 30 years or so. Digging in the heels and shouting is now more important than ever…”

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“It is so heartening to see Britain’s finest writers joining Liberty’s campaign against extending detention without charge. Not a single writer that was approached turned down the opportunity to register their opposition to this divisive policy. Tomorrow the House of Lords will speak and we urge the government to listen.”

'42 Writers for Liberty' was organised by Simon Prosser, Publishing Director of Hamish Hamilton; Anya Serota, Publishing Director of Canongate Books, and Hari Kunzru, author of the novels THE IMPRESSIONIST, TRANSMISSION and MY REVOLUTIONS.

The full list of participating writers in “42 Writers for Liberty” are: Julian Barnes; Ian Rankin; Salley Vickers; Alain de Botton; Daljit Nagra;Tahmima Anam;A.L. Kennedy; Stella Duffy; Andrew O'Hagan;Joe Dunthorne; Mohsin Hamid; Craig Taylor; Kamila Shamsie; Nadeem Aslam; Linda Grant; Monica Ali; Rachel North; Nick Laird; Jackie Kay; Toby Litt; Maria Hyland; Philip Pullman; Hisham Matar; Jenny Diski; Michel Faber; Terence Blacker; Hari Kunzru; Anne Donovan; Lisa Appignenesi; Alexander Masters; David Mitchell; Jay Griffiths; Esther Freud; Darian Leader; Bernardine Evaristo; Ann Leslie; Hardeep Singh Kohli; Nikita Lalwani; Sadie Jones;Tom Hodgkinson; Shami Chakrabarti;Ali Smith. The online calendar of their new short works is on www.42writers.com

Contact: Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. Liberty believes that extending pre-charge detention to 42 days is:

- Unnecessary: The Home Secretary has accepted that there has been no case to date where longer than 28 days’ detention has been needed. The Government’s only argument is that the powers might be needed in the future.

- Wrong in Principle: It would fly in the face of our basic democratic principles of justice, fairness and liberty to hold people for over a month on the basis of police suspicion rather than hard evidence and without formally accusing them of any criminal offence. Innocent people would almost certainly be detained for long periods of time and then released without charge. Released after six weeks in police custody, the individual may well have lost their job, home and the trust of their community, friends and perhaps even family.

- Counterproductive: Unjust measures like these do not make us safer. The Home Office’s own Equality Impact Assessment states, ‘Muslim groups said that pre-charge detention may risk information being forthcoming from members of the community in the future.’

- Better Alternatives: Alternatives suggested by Liberty include: (A) allowing intercept evidence to be used in criminal trials so that the police can use existing surveillance material to support a charge; and (B) with judicial oversight, allowing the police to re-question suspects that have already been charged with an offence if new evidence comes to light suggesting that a more serious charge may be appropriate.

2. The House of Lords is expected to vote on the 42-day proposal on 13 October 2008. It seems likely that the Lords will vote against the measure, as it was nearly universally condemned in the Lords’ second reading debate. If the Lords vote against extending pre-charge detention to 42 days, the Government may choose to drop the controversial measure or may attempt to reintroduce it when the bill returns to the House of Commons in November.

3. On 30 September 2008, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights published a heavily critical report: “Proposed 42-day pre-charge detention in the United Kingdom” which can be found on http://assembly.coe.int

4. On 11 June 2008, the House of Commons voted 315-306 to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days as proposed in the Counter-Terror Bill.

5. Since October 2007, Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign has focused on building a cross-party political and public campaign against the unnecessary and divisive policy of extending pre-charge detention to 42 days, which would create injustice and undermine community relations. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign, winner of the Public Affairs News’ Voluntary Sector Campaign of the Year in 2008, has the support of the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, designer Vivienne Westwood, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, UNITE, UNISON, CWU, National Union of Journalists, the General Synod and others. http://www.chargeorrelease.com



20081012Forty-two leading writers will join Liberty in opposing Government plans to hold suspects for 42 days without charge. '42 Writers for Liberty' will showcase new works by leading writers including Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Julian Barnes, Mohsin Hamid, Ian Rankin, Sadie Jones, Ali Smith and A.L. Kennedy.
Liberty's response to resignation of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair 
“The office of Metropolitan Commissioner is one of the most difficult in law enforcement and important in the capital. Sir Ian held this position during incredibly testing times that would have tested any incumbent. We hope his successor and senior politicians will learn from the mistakes of the past. Both the public and the service need senior officers to be police chiefs not politicians. Political independence is vital to trust. We also hope that the Menezes family will feel that there has finally been accountability for their tragic loss.”

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1.In July 2008 Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti delivered the Police Foundation John Harris Memorial Lecture, which is available to read online as a PDF document. The lecture was titled: "A Thinning Blue Line? Police Independence and the Rule of Law".
20081002Today Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair resigned from office, and Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti responded to his departure.New Council of Europe report criticises Government anti-terror plansParliamentary involvement in extending pre-charge detention is a “slippery slope” which risks Parliament being blamed for miscarriages of justice, said the Council’s report published today. On Thursday (2 October) the Council’s Parliamentary Assembly will vote on a resolution calling for greater scrutiny of the 42-day proposal in the UK’s Counter-Terror Bill.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“All over Europe the authorities charge or release suspects in less than a week. Our Government should drop the 42- day madness and move on.”

“Britain once used the Council of Europe to promote fundamental freedoms in younger democracies. It is embarrassing in the extreme that this same Council should have to tell a UK government why it’s wrong to imprison people for six weeks without charge.”

Liberty’s comprehensive study of terrorist pre-charge detention powers in 15 countries, which revealed that the US limit is 48 hours, the closest equivalent to pre-charge detention in Spain is limited to five days and Turkish criminal law only permits 7.5 days’ detention, is highlighted in the Council’s report.

Liberty has cited the following flaws in Government’s proposals:

● the Home Secretary has the power to extend pre-charge detention in individual cases beyond 28 days without any evidence of a genuine emergency situation.

● MPs are not allowed to vote about when the powers should be activated.

● the courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention.

Liberty suggests the following counter-terror proposals be pursued:

- Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence to make it easier to bring charges in terror cases.

- Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases, provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight.

- Hire more foreign language interpreters

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights report, “Proposed 42-day pre-charge detention in the United Kingdom” was published on 30 September and can be found on http://assembly.coe.int

2. On 11 June 2008, the House of Commons voted 315-306 to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days as proposed in the Counter-Terror Bill.

3. The House of Lords are expected to vote on the 42-day proposal on 13 October 2008.

4. In 2007 Liberty formally launched its Charge or Release campaign to stop Government plans to extend the period terror suspects are held without charge. Liberty is mobilising its members, the public and politicians to oppose any extension beyond the current 28-day detention period, which is nearly four times longer than that of most comparable democracies.20080930Today Liberty called Government plans to extend pre-charge detention limits to 42 days an “international embarrassment” amid fresh criticism from the Council of Europe that the plans are “unduly complicated” and “not readily understandable.”Liberty urges Government action, not empty promises, for child asylum seekersLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“Government has taken a symbolic step which will no doubt spare some blushes in Geneva and Manchester next week, but warm words require real action if this is to be anything other than fools’ gold. It’s easy to weep hot tears for suffering children around the world; then subject them to imprisonment and degradation if they have the audacity to escape to Britain.”

Liberty urged the Government to reform its policies as an urgent priority in the following areas:

● End the detention of child asylum seekers and their families

● Ban the degrading and inhumane treatment of using x-rays to determine the age of child asylum seekers

● Stop the destitution of young asylum seekers by removing benefits at age 18 and not allowing them to work

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the rights of children who are seeking asylum to appropriate protection and assistance.

Since 1991, the UK Government has retained an opt-out, allowing child asylum seekers to be detained for long periods without proper access to the courts. Reports today indicate that the Government will sign the UNCRC in full before the UN’s report scrutinizing the UK’s human rights record is published next week.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1) Liberty has intervened in a legal challenge against local authorities being solely responsible for determining the age of unaccompanied child asylum seekers. In “M” and “A” and the London Boroughs’ of Lambeth and Croydon, Liberty argued that the current system is unfair because local authorities must take financial responsibility for child asylum seekers and have a vested interest in deciding an individual is an adult in an attempt to save scarce resources. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal on 17 – 19 September and the judgment is anticipated in October 2008.

2) Liberty has intervened in a case to prevent the UK from returning a mother and child to the Lebanon where they will be separated, as sharia law will give full custody of the child to his father. The Law Lords heard EM (Lebanon) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department and AF and Justice and Liberty on 21- 22 July 2008. The judgment was reserved.

3) Liberty is bringing a legal challenge on behalf of three detainees who claim that during the November 2006 Harmondsworth disturbance they were denied food and water for up to 40 hours; locked in overcrowded, pitch-black rooms flooded with water for more than 24 hours; forced to urinate and defecate in front of each other; and strip searched in front of several officers. Liberty's case against the Home Office and Kalyx Ltd (the contractor running the centre) awaits a date before the Court of Appeal.

20080919The human rights group Liberty today urged the Government to make radical policy changes to protect the rights of child asylum seekers, after the Government pledged to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in full.Unfair age assessment of child asylum seekers must be scrapped, says LibertyLiberty will argue that the current system is unfair because local authorities must take financial responsibility for child asylum seekers and have a vested interest in deciding a refugee is an adult in an attempt to save scarce resources.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Anna Fairclough, who is intervening in the case, said:

“Children facing war and persecution who have fled without their identity papers deserve our protection from penny pinching bureaucrats who would leave them homeless. Local authorities must not be judge and jury in guessing a child’s age whilst they have to foot the bill.”

Two young asylum seekers are bringing the joint appeal against Croydon Borough Council and Lambeth Borough Council. “A” fled Afghanistan after his father was killed and he was forced to leave his home. Although a doctor calculated that he was 15 years old, Croydon Social Services claimed he was over-18 and refused to provide him with children’s support. He became homeless. “M” fled Libya in fear of political persecution and although the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal assessed him as under-18, Lambeth Borough Council denied him proper support after deciding he was an adult.

Under UK law, an unaccompanied child asylum seeker is entitled to be looked after by the local authority as a child, rather than dispersed around the country with adult asylum seekers. Home Office policy requires that if a local authority deems the individual to be an adult, the immigration authorities will allow that person to be detained as an adult and possibly deported or removed to a “safe” third country.

If the Court of Appeal determines that the current system is unfair, the court itself may be responsible for making decisions about age. Liberty suggests that a better solution would be the creation of specialist independent centres for the assessment of the age of asylum seeking children.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. “M” and “A”and the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth and the Council of the London Borough of Croydon will be heard by the Court of Appeal on Wednesday 17 September 2008. The judgment will be reserved.



20080916Tomorrow the Court of Appeal will consider if local authorities should retain sole responsibility for determining the age of unaccompanied child asylum seekers, after a 15-year-old Afghan refugee with learning difficulties was left homeless in London.
Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti to address Newcastle University Business SchoolIn its third year and held in association with The Bridge Club Ltd, the event will be chaired by David Campbell of the Newcastle University Business School and facilitated by Andrew Hebden of The Journal.

Entitled ‘The Business of Human Rights’, in addition to discussing how the campaigning priorities of Liberty are relevant to the business community, the Director of Liberty will also be asked about her personal morals and motivations.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The rule of law is as important to the economy as to other aspects of life. When businessmen fear unfair extradition, consumers fear for their privacy and neighbours fear each other, its time to re-invest in the common values that build confidence and bind society together.”

WHAT: ‘In Conversation With…’ Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti

WHO: Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti, Andrew Hebden, The Journal, and David Campbell, NUBS

WHEN: Wednesday 10th September, 16:30 -19:00

WHERE: Moncur Suite, Newcastle United Football Club, St James Park, NE1 4ST

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3677 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors:

1. Liberty is a campaigning group working since 1934 to protect civil liberties and promote human rights through a combination of test case litigation, lobbying, campaigning and the provision of free advice. Liberty is an independent membership organisation and relies on the support of individuals. Join today at www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. Shami Chakrabarti has been Director of Liberty (The National Council for Civil Liberties) since September 2003. Shami first joined Liberty as In-House Counsel on 10 September 2001. She became heavily involved in its engagement with the “War on Terror” and with the defence and promotion of human rights values in Parliament, the Courts and wider society. A Barrister by background, she was called to the Bar in 1994 and worked as a lawyer in the Home Office from 1996 until 2001 for Governments of both persuasions. Since becoming Liberty’s Director she has written, spoken and broadcast widely on the importance of the post-WW2 human rights framework as an essential component of democratic society. She is Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University, a Governor of the London School of Economics and the British Film Institute, a Visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford and a Master of the Bench of Middle Temple. She is thirty nine years old and lives with her husband and five year old son in London.

3. The Newcastle University Business School Ethics Forum was set up by Newcastle University Business School and Bridge Club Ltd in 2007.

20080904Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti is the guest speaker at the Newcastle University Business School Ethics Forum’s ‘In Conversation With…’ event.

Al Skeini and Others V Secretary of State for Defence 
On 17 April 2007, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (the Law Lords), the highest court in the UK, will begin its consideration of a case arising from the deaths of six Iraqi civilians by British troops stationed in south east Iraq.

All six deaths occurred at a time when, and in the areas where, the UK was an Occupying Power under international humanitarian law. Five of the six Iraqi civilians were shot and fatally wounded by members of UK armed forces in the course of “patrols” operations. They were: Hazim Jum’aa Gatteh Al-Skeini, aged 23, shot dead in the street by the commander of a British military patrol; Muhammad Abdul Ridha Salim, a teacher aged 45, shot and fatally wounded by a sergeant in a military unit who forcibly entered his brother-in-law’s house; Hannan Mahaibas Sadde Shmailawi, aged 33, shot and fatally wounded by gunfire during an exchange involving a British military patrol whilst she was eating a family evening meal in her home; Waleed Sayay Muzban, aged 43, shot and fatally injured by a Lance Corporal during a military patrol whilst he was driving a mini-bus; and Raid Hadi Sabir Al Musawi, a police commissioner aged 29, shot and fatally wounded in the street by a corporal in a British military patrol. The sixth death, that of Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist aged 26, occurred after he was tortured over a period of 36 hours while detained by British troops.

The Law Lords will consider whether the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) were applicable to the conduct of British troops that resulted in these deaths. In particular, the Law Lords will decide whether, under the ECHR, the UK was obliged to conduct a prompt, independent and impartial investigation into the deaths of each of the above-mentioned Iraqi civilian to give full effect to the rights to life and to be protected from torture or other ill-treatment.

The Interveners - eleven national and international organisations – decided to intervene because of their grave concern about the practices of States during the occupation of foreign territory that have the potential impact of subverting the rule of law and State accountability. It is crucial that domestic and international law are not undermined or circumvented and that fundamental human rights, and the attendant obligations that give them effect, are upheld.

The Interveners are particularly concerned that the failure to hold States to the highest standards of accountability for violations of fundamental rights risks creating a practice and an expectation of impunity. No ECHR compliant investigation has so far occurred into any of the deaths currently before the House of Lords; nor is there any question of accountability under Iraqi law for the acts in question because UK troops are immune from Iraqi legal process.

Background: The Law Lords’ consideration of the case of Al Skeini and Others v Secretary of State for Defence is scheduled for 17-19 and 23-25 April. The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in December 2005 in the present case that arrest and detention by British troops operating abroad, as in the case of Baha Mousa, met the jurisdictional requirements necessary to make the ECHR applicable to their conduct. Therefore, the UK was under an obligation to conduct a full and effective investigation into his torture and death. Echoing the decision of the Divisional Court at first instance, the Court of Appeal distinguished the circumstances of Baha Mousa’s death from those of the other 5 Iraqis with which the case is concerned, holding that for the latter there was no jurisdiction for the purposes of the ECHR. On 13th March 2007, final Court Martial acquittals of soldiers in connection with Baha Mousa’s death in custody were issued. No one has so far been held accountable for his death or that of the other five Iraqis on which this case is centred.

Interveners: The Organisations intervening before the Law Lords include: The Aire Centre, Amnesty International, The Association for the Prevention of Torture, The Bar Human Rights Committee, British Irish Rights Watch, Interights, Justice, Kurdish Human Rights Project, Liberty, and The Redress Trust. The organisations are represented, pro bono, by Keir Starmer QC, Richard Hermer, Charles Banner and Azeem Suterwalla, all of Doughty Street Chambers, and Raju Bhatt of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors.

Further Information: Please contact the press offices of the intervening organisations.
20070417The Law Lords’ consideration of the case of Al Skeini and Others v Secretary of State for Defence is scheduled for 17-19 and 23-25 April 2007. The following press release has been issued by the eleven organisations intervening in the case.These include:

The Aire Centre, Amnesty International, The Association for the Prevention of Torture, The Bar Human Rights Committee, British Irish Rights Watch, Interights, Justice, Kurdish Human Rights Project, Liberty, and The Redress Trust. The organisations are represented, pro bono, by Keir Starmer QC, Richard Hermer, Charles Banner and Azeem Suterwalla, all of Doughty Street Chambers, and Raju Bhatt of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors.Victory for Sikh schoolgirl unlawfully excluded for wearing religious bangleThe human rights group Liberty, representing 14-year-old Sarika Singh, successfully argued that Aberdare Girls’ School in South Wales breached race relations and equality laws by excluding her since November 2007 for wearing the kara (a plain single bangle widely accepted as a central tenet of the Sikh race and religion).

Anna Fairclough, Liberty’s Legal Officer representing the Singhs, said:

“This common sense judgment makes clear you must have a very good reason before interfering with someone’s religious freedom. Our great British traditions of religious tolerance and race equality have been rightly upheld today.”

Noting that the school has a role to play in developing principles of religious and racial tolerance in its pupils, Mr Justice Silber said in his judgment:

“…Without those principles being adopted in a school, it is difficult to see how a cohesive and tolerant multi-cultural society can be built in this country…I hope that the school will take all possible steps to ensure first that [she] can become quickly assimilated again within the school and second that there will be no bullying of her for racial or religious reasons.”

Singh, of mixed Welsh/Punjabi origin, has been raised in the Sikh faith and was the only Sikh at the Aberdare Girls’ School. The school’s uniform policy prohibits the wearing of any jewellery other than a wrist watch and plain ear studs. When the school noticed that Singh was wearing the kara, she was isolated for two months, including during meals and physical education classes despite her offer to remove or cover the Kara during exercise, before being excluded entirely in November 2007.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. Liberty filed the legal challenge in the High Court on 19 December 2007 which argues that the Governing Body of the Aberdare Girls’ School has indirectly discriminated on the grounds of race contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976; breached the duty to promote equality under s71 Race Relations Act 1976; indirectly discriminated on the ground of religion or belief contrary to the Equality Act 2006; and breached the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 (the right to a private life).

2. The Welsh Assembly published uniform guidelines for Welsh schools on 18 January 2008, after facing pressure from protestors calling for the guidelines to be introduced. Today’s judgment will be applied to the Aberdare Girls’ School but will not be binding on other schools.

3. The Kara (a small plain single bangle) is widely accepted as a central element or requirement of the Sikh race and religion and is specifically intended to be worn on the wrist as a reminder of the tenets of the faith.

4. Valleys Race Equality Council and UNITED SIKHS are supporting the Singh family.

5. In 2006, Liberty supported the religious freedom case of Nadia Eweida, a Christian British Airways check-in worker, who claimed she was forced to take unpaid leave after refusing to remove a small cross from her necklace.
20080729Today the High Court awarded victory to a Sikh schoolgirl who was excluded from school for wearing a religious bangle, upholding a 25-year-old Law Lords ruling allowing Sikhs to wear items representing their faith.Mother facing separation from her son seeks relief from Law LordsLiberty will tell the Law Lords that the mother’s right to a family life and to gender equality require that she not be returned to Lebanon, where her ex-husband will automatically be granted full custody rights over her son under Shari’a law.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Alex Gask, who intervened in the case, said:

“We cannot deny this child the right to be with his mother. How can the same government which champions equal treatment under British law now deport mother and child to face certain separation under Shari’a?”

In an intervention to be heard by the Law Lords on Monday 21 July, Liberty and Justice will argue that the automatic and permanent separation of a mother from her child under Shari’a law, following her expulsion to Lebanon, amounts to a flagrant breach of the mother’s (and child’s) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights - Article 8, the right to a family life, and Article 14, which prohibits discrimination.

The mother, “EM”, arrived in the United Kingdom in December 2004 with her son, who was born in July 1996, and claimed asylum. She had obtained a divorce from her allegedly violent husband in the Islamic court in Lebanon and had been awarded physical custody of her son until his seventh birthday. According to Shari’a law, after that date she would lose physical custody, which would be awarded to her husband and his family. Because she did not want to be bound by that law, she left Lebanon with her son on false documents. Following the refusal of her claim for asylum in the UK, she and her son face expulsion to Lebanon. “EM” is now appealing to the Law Lords to determine that in this “foreign” case (in which the act of a government removing a person from its territories would lead to that person’s human rights being violated in the territory to which she has been sent) her right to a family life would be so severely violated that she should be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The Law Lords will hear EM (Lebanon) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department and AF and Justice and Liberty on 21 and 22 July 2008. The judgment will be reserved. For a copy of Liberty’s intervention contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. The contention that, if returned to the Lebanon, EM would automatically lose custody of her child is not in dispute. A written report by an expert in Islamic law and customs relating to marriage, divorce and child custody confirmed that, in accordance with the principle of Islamic law that “the male is seen as the leader of the family unit”, legal custody of a child lies with the father. In recognition of “the infant’s need for female care” physical custody is given to the mother until the age of custodial transfer, generally set at the age of seven, but thereafter reverts automatically to the father.

20080718A Lebanese woman who fled an abusive husband to retain custody of their son is to ask the Law Lords to protect her human right to raise her son by halting her deportation.
Response to Conservative MP David Davis by-election winLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“Notwithstanding Government absence from the debate, this by-election has kept people talking about civil liberties issues locally and nationally, particularly in the vital weeks between House of Commons and House of Lords debates on extending pre-charge detention limits to 42 days.

At Liberty, we often hear it said that human rights are a box of lawyers' tricks designed to help criminals in court. It was good therefore to see a democratic election fought on civil liberties. Over 15,000 people in a rural seat far from London said rights and freedoms matter to them. To say that any free and fair election is a waste of time and money is rather disrespectful of democracy and the millions of people all over the world still fighting for it.”
20080711Liberty response to Conservative MP David Davis winning the Haltemprice and Howden by-election on a civil liberties platform.Peers to begin opposition to 42 day pre-charge detention plansLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “The dark arts of Government whipping may have got 42 days through the Commons however the Lords is a different place – more independent and respectful of the traditions that have kept Britain free and safe for so long.”

Baroness Helena Kennedy said: “As a long-time member of the Labour party, I am also very worried about the political folly of this divisive policy. I had long hoped that that my party could begin to win back the many members and voters alienated by the War on Terror and War in Iraq. Voting against 42 days would be a good way to start.”

Lord Ahmed said: “My fear is that the proposal of 42 days pre-charge detention in the Counter-terrorism Bill will play into the hands of extremist groups and individuals, and it will increase anti-Muslim feelings. It will be counter-productive as it will lead to damaged community relations, and further alienate the young Muslims. It is unjust and it violates people’s rights and it will inevitably undermine the UK’s moral authority around the world.

Liberty has pointed out that extending pre-charge detention to 42 days is:

● Unnecessary: The Home Secretary and Sir Ian Blair have accepted that there has been no case to date where longer than 28 days’ detention has been needed. The Government’s only argument is that the powers might be needed in the future. What support there is from amongst the police is, at its strongest, equivocal. Indeed, long-serving police officers, acting and retired, have told Liberty that 42 days’ detention would be “disastrous”.

● Wrong in Principle: It would fly in the face of our basic democratic principles of justice, fairness and liberty to hold people for over a month on the basis of police suspicion rather than hard evidence and without formally accusing them of any criminal offence. Innocent people would almost certainly be detained for long periods of time and then released without charge. Released after six weeks in police custody, the suspect may well have lost their job, home and the trust of their community, friends and perhaps even family.

● Counterproductive: Unjust measures like these do not make us safer. The Home Office’s own Equality Impact Assessment states, ‘Muslim groups said that pre-charge detention may risk information being forthcoming from members of the community in the future.’

● Better Alternatives: Alternatives suggested by Liberty include: (A) allowing intercept evidence to be used in criminal trials so that the police can use existing surveillance material to support a charge; and (B) with judicial oversight, allowing the police to re-question suspects that have already been charged with an offence if new evidence comes to light suggesting that a more serious charge may be appropriate.

For 10 months, Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign has focused on building a cross-party political and public campaign against the unnecessary and divisive policy, which would create injustice and undermine community relations. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign, winner of the Public Affairs News’ Voluntary Sector Campaign of the Year in 2008, has the support of the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, UNITE, UNISON, CWU, National Union of Journalists and the General Synod.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. The Second Reading of the Counter-Terror Bill will be held on 8 July 2008 but the Bill’s progression is unlikely to be completed before the parliamentary summer recess. Any changes to the Bill made by Peers are therefore likely to be debated again in the Commons in the autumn. On 11 June 2008, the Counter-Terror Bill was narrowly passed in the House of Commons (315-306), despite widespread concern about the negative impact on civil liberties and community relations.

2. For a copy of Liberty’s briefing for the Lords Second Reading of the Counter-Terror Bill or Liberty’s short briefing, “Understanding the pre-charge detention debate” contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk.

3. Liberty has pointed out that existing laws and practices undermine the argument for extending pre-charge detention periods including:

● Threshold Test - The Director of Public Prosecutions (responsible for charging decisions) has said longer pre-charge detention is unnecessary because charging practice has recently changed to help the prosecution charge terror suspects earlier. Instead of requiring enough evidence to stand a “realistic prospect of conviction” (the full test) prosecutors can now charge suspects where there is enough evidence to support a “reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence” and where it is likely that additional evidence will soon be obtained (the threshold test). The DPP has said that the threshold test is now used frequently in terrorism cases – it was only just coming into use when pre-charge detention was considered in 2005. The Director of Public Prosecutions noted in March 2008 that the conviction rate in terror cases stands at 92 percent.

● Emergency measures in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could already be triggered in a genuine emergency in which the police are overwhelmed by multiple terror plots, allowing the Government to temporarily extend pre-charge detention subject to Parliamentary and judicial oversight. Safeguards offered by Government today offer far less protection than that offered in the Civil Contingencies Act.

4. On 12 November 2007, Liberty released a comprehensive study of terrorist pre-charge detention powers in 15 countries, including the United States, Spain, Russia, France and Turkey. Liberty’s “International Charge or Release Study”, based on advice and assistance from lawyers and academics around the world, demonstrates that the existing 28-day limit already far exceeds equivalent limits in other comparable democracies. In countries that do not have the exact concept of “pre-charge detention”, like France and Germany, lawyers qualified in those jurisdictions have identified the closest equivalent. These findings have subsequently been supported by advice received from the head of research at the Italian parliament, the French chief of counter-terrorism prosecution as well as by the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights who stated that 42 days “would be way out of line with equivalent detention limits elsewhere in Europe”
20080708Today the House of Lords is to begin its opposition to the Government’s controversial plans to extend pre-charge detention limits in the Counter-Terror Bill. Narrowly passed in the Commons last month, the proposals have been condemned as unnecessary, counter-productive and dangerous for community relations.Liberty wins Voluntary Sector Public Affairs Campaign of the year
Through the use of a variety of campaigning techniques, including parliamentary briefing papers, campaign packs, meetings with MPs and billboard advertisements, the campaign succeeded in turning this issue into a national debate with real results in both the public and political arenas.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3677 or 0797 3 831 128

20080704'Charge or Release', Liberty’s campaign against any extension of pre-charge detention for terror suspects beyond the current limit of 28 days, has won the Public Affairs News award for Voluntary Sector Public Affairs Campaign of the year.http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/06-11-08-liberty-warns-against-expensive-and-invasive-id-card-scheme.shtmlLiberty responds to the Home Secretary’s announcement that the ID cards roll-out will be accelerated with private contractors taking sensitive biometric details.200811061445http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/06-11-08-liberty-warns-against-expensive-and-invasive-id-card-scheme.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/24-09-08-liberty-warns-against-expensive-and-unnecessary-id-card-scheme.shtmlThe Home Office’s anticipated announcement that ID cards will be compulsory for foreign nationals by November 2008 seeks to soften the public before making ID cards compulsory for all British nationals, Liberty warned.200809241744http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/24-09-08-liberty-warns-against-expensive-and-unnecessary-id-card-scheme.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/24-10-08-liberty-argues-vulnerable-psychiatric-patients-deserve-same-prote.shtmlThe same ‘right to life’ test should apply to patients detained in psychiatric hospitals as it does to prisoners, said the human rights group Liberty today.200810241714http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/24-10-08-liberty-argues-vulnerable-psychiatric-patients-deserve-same-prote.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/23-10-08-law-lords-to-consider-deportation-to-torture-appeals.shtmlDetails of Algeria’s human rights record should not be subject to secret hearings by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) when determining if Algerian nationals are to be returned to the risk of torture, said the human rights group Liberty today.200810231036http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/23-10-08-law-lords-to-consider-deportation-to-torture-appeals.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/plymouth-city-council-mosquito-hearing.shtmlAt a special hearing on Tuesday 26 August, Liberty will urge Plymouth City Council to ban the “Mosquito device,” which forces young people out of public areas by emitting a high-pitched squeal audible to under 25 year olds.200808221619http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/plymouth-city-council-mosquito-hearing.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/22-10-08-mother-facing-separation-from-her-son-granted-refuge.shtmlA Lebanese woman who fled her abusive husband to retain custody of their son will be allowed to remain in the UK following a significant House of Lords’ ruling today.200810221105http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/22-10-08-mother-facing-separation-from-her-son-granted-refuge.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/14-10-08-victory-for-liberty-s-charge-or-release-campaign.shtmlThe Government has dropped plans for 42 days detention. Last night saw a resounding victory for Liberty's long running Charge or Release campaign. Common sense and common decency prevailed as the Government dropped plans to detain terror suspects for 42 days without charge, following an overwhelming defeat in the House of Lords. The Upper House rejected the proposal by a devastating 191 votes. 200810140016http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/14-10-08-victory-for-liberty-s-charge-or-release-campaign.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/13-10-08-lords-defeat-government-on-42-days-pre-charge-detention.shtmlIn an overwhelming defeat for the Government, the House of Lords have voted down controversial plans to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days for terror suspects by 309 - 118.200810131916http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/13-10-08-lords-defeat-government-on-42-days-pre-charge-detention.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/12-10-08-42-writers-for-liberty-oppose-42-days-pre-charge-detention.shtmlForty-two leading writers will join Liberty in opposing Government plans to hold suspects for 42 days without charge. '42 Writers for Liberty' will showcase new works by leading writers including Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Julian Barnes, Mohsin Hamid, Ian Rankin, Sadie Jones, Ali Smith and A.L. Kennedy. 200810120055http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/12-10-08-42-writers-for-liberty-oppose-42-days-pre-charge-detention.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/02-10-08-liberty-response-to-sir-ian-blair-s-resignation.shtmlToday Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair resigned from office, and Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti responded to his departure.200810031039http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/02-10-08-liberty-response-to-sir-ian-blair-s-resignation.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/30-09-08-council-of-europe-report-criticises-government-anti-terror-plans.shtmlToday Liberty called Government plans to extend pre-charge detention limits to 42 days an “international embarrassment” amid fresh criticism from the Council of Europe that the plans are “unduly complicated” and “not readily understandable.”200809301745http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/30-09-08-council-of-europe-report-criticises-government-anti-terror-plans.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/19-09-08-government-action-not-empty-promises-for-child-asylum-seekers.shtmlThe human rights group Liberty today urged the Government to make radical policy changes to protect the rights of child asylum seekers, after the Government pledged to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in full.200809191240http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/19-09-08-government-action-not-empty-promises-for-child-asylum-seekers.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/16-09-08-scrap-unfair-age-assessment-of-child-asylum-seekers.shtmlTomorrow the Court of Appeal will consider if local authorities should retain sole responsibility for determining the age of unaccompanied child asylum seekers, after a 15-year-old Afghan refugee with learning difficulties was left homeless in London.200809161235http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/16-09-08-scrap-unfair-age-assessment-of-child-asylum-seekers.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/shami-to-address-newcastle-university-business-school.shtmlLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti is the guest speaker at the Newcastle University Business School Ethics Forum’s ‘In Conversation With…’ event. 200809051546http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/shami-to-address-newcastle-university-business-school.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/al-skeini.shtmlThe Law Lords’ consideration of the case of Al Skeini and Others v Secretary of State for Defence is scheduled for 17-19 and 23-25 April 2007. The following press release has been issued by the eleven organisations intervening in the case.These include:The Aire Centre, Amnesty International, The Association for the Prevention of Torture, The Bar Human Rights Committee, British Irish Rights Watch, Interights, Justice, Kurdish Human Rights Project, Liberty, and The Redress Trust. The organisations are represented, pro bono, by Keir Starmer QC, Richard Hermer, Charles Banner and Azeem Suterwalla, all of Doughty Street Chambers, and Raju Bhatt of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors.200704171649http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/al-skeini.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/victory-for-sikh-schoolgirl.shtmlToday the High Court awarded victory to a Sikh schoolgirl who was excluded from school for wearing a religious bangle, upholding a 25-year-old Law Lords ruling allowing Sikhs to wear items representing their faith.200807291059http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/victory-for-sikh-schoolgirl.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mother-facing-separation-from-her-son.shtmlA Lebanese woman who fled an abusive husband to retain custody of their son is to ask the Law Lords to protect her human right to raise her son by halting her deportation. 200807181633http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mother-facing-separation-from-her-son.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/davis-by-election-win.shtmlLiberty response to Conservative MP David Davis winning the Haltemprice and Howden by-election on a civil liberties platform.200807111122http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/davis-by-election-win.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/peers-to-begin-opposition-to-42-day-pre-charge-detention-plans.shtmlToday the House of Lords is to begin its opposition to the Government’s controversial plans to extend pre-charge detention limits in the Counter-Terror Bill. Narrowly passed in the Commons last month, the proposals have been condemned as unnecessary, counter-productive and dangerous for community relations.200807081018http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/peers-to-begin-opposition-to-42-day-pre-charge-detention-plans.shtmlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/liberty-wins-voluntary-sector-public-affairs-campaign-of-the-year.shtml'Charge or Release', Liberty’s campaign against any extension of pre-charge detention for terror suspects beyond the current limit of 28 days, has won the Public Affairs News award for Voluntary Sector Public Affairs Campaign of the year.200807041401http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/liberty-wins-voluntary-sector-public-affairs-campaign-of-the-year.shtml