Liberty Human Rightshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.ukHuman rights and civil liberties news from UK campaigning group Liberty.ID cards - when is a climbdown not a climbdown?Isabella Sankey, Policy Director for Liberty, said:

“However you spin it, big ears, four legs and a long trunk still make an elephant. And this white elephant is as costly to privacy and race equality as to our purses. As long as entry on the National Identity Register is automatic when applying for a passport the ID scheme will be compulsory in practice”

In a public consultation document published in November last year the Government already announced that British citizens would have the ‘choice’ of having a passport or ID card or both but that anyone applying for a passport would have their details entered automatically on the National Identity Register. Personal details recorded on the database would include fingerprints, facial images and up to fifty pieces of additional information (going well beyond what is held by the passport agency). The £5.6 billion ID card scheme has been unsuccessfully touted by the Government as a solution to identity theft, benefit fraud, crime, and terrorism.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The public consultation document, Identity Cards Act Secondary Legislation – a consultation, can be found here. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/haveyoursay/closed-consultations/2008-cons-closed1/?version=1

2. Liberty’s response to the consultation can be found here http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/liberty-s-response-to-home-office-consultation-ica-secondary-legislation.pdf

3. Liberty’s principal 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.

4. 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.

20090701Liberty responded today to the new Home Secretary’s claims that identity cards for British citizens will be voluntary. Although the Home Secretary said that ‘holding an identity card should be a personal choice for British citizens’, when applying for a passport details will still be entered on the National Identity Register, the massive database that supports the scheme.
Liberty response to Home Office ID cards announcement“The Home Secretary needs to be clear as to whether entry onto the National Identity Register will continue to be automatic when applying for a passport. If so, the identity scheme will be compulsory in practice. However you spin it, big ears, four legs and a long trunk still make an elephant. And this white elephant would be as costly to privacy and race equality as to our purses.”


20090630Responding to the new Home Secretary's announcement on ID cards today, Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty, said:
Former Minister of State for Trade condemns UK’s unfair extradition lawsBaron Jones of Birmingham, former Trade Minister and Director of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said that the situation must change:

“If we as a nation are to avoid any more appalling situations where UK citizens are lifted…with little burden of proof. People are being extradited (by a judiciary rendered powerless by laws passed by this Government) to a situation which is unacceptable. This is not about guilt and innocence. This is about people being unfairly treated in practice before their trial “

Under current UK law an individual can extradited to another country without even basic evidence being shown in a local court. A YouGov poll, conducted on behalf of Liberty shows a lack of public awareness about extradition in the UK – 70% of those polled did not know about the UK’s extradition procedures. The poll also revealed that 58% thought the law should be changed.

Sabina Frediani, Campaigns Co-ordinator for Liberty, said:

“This poll shows the lack of support for summary extradition. Fast track extradition is justice denied – Extradition Watch, our new campaign, seeks to pressure Government to stop extradition without safeguards.”

At the launch of the campaign, which was chaired by Gillian Tett, speakers Edward Fitzgerald QC and Frank Symeou, father of Andrew Symeou, joined Liberty in criticising the UK’s current extradition arrangements.

In a moving speech Frank Symeou, whose son is currently fighting extradition to Greece on the basis of evidence described as ‘seriously flawed, contradictory and in places ludicrous’, told the audience that:

‘what is happening to Andrew and our family could happen to you…there are serious questions and concerns about the case against my son and it is totally unacceptable that a British court, CPS or even the police cannot examine the flawed evidence against him…..it seems nobody wants to listen’

Liberty believes

- that a person should not be extradited to stand trial in a foreign country without evidence being presented in a British court to prove there is a basic (prima facie) case against them
-If the crime is alleged to have occurred in whole or in part in the UK, then the person should not be extradited if a court here decides it is not in the interest of justice to extradite

-A person in the UK should not be extradited for something that is not a crime in the UK. British justice should not be circumvented.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Find out more about Liberty’s campaign here http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/extradition/index.shtml

2. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 1,902 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 11th - 12th June 2009. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). For full polling results please contact mcrodgers@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

3. Find Liberty’s latest briefing on extradition here http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/1-policy-papers/11-bills/policing-and-crime-on-extradition-committee-stage-lords.pdf

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128



20090618A former Minister of State for Trade has released a statement condemning extradition laws to coincide with the launch of Liberty’s Extradition Watch campaign last night.
Control orders, torture techniques and the rise of the BNP - Does Britain still care about human rights?Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said;

“This poll will be depressing reading for the cocky far right and others opposed to human rights in Britain. Despite headlines about “waterboarding” and punishment without trial, our common values still run extremely deep and the contents of the Human Rights Act are valued by the overwhelming majority of people.”

The ComRes polling, commissioned by Liberty, sends a clear message to all political parties about the values the British public hold dear.

● 89% identified the right not to be tortured or degraded as either vital or important..
● 95% identified both the right to a fair trial and respect for privacy family life and the home as either vital or important.
● 76% believed that the right not to be detained without reason was either vital or important.

At last week’s Liberty conference, recently retired senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham said of the Human Rights Act:

“Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any of them un-British? There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number.”

Sabina Frediani, Campaigns Co-ordinator for Liberty, said;

“Britain hasn’t just got talent; it’s got an ocean of common sense and decency too. Public bodies have yet to step up and educate people about their rights protections but the public cherish them nonetheless. We need to be more suspicious of politicians who bash our human rights whilst demanding “due process” and “personal privacy” for themselves.”

Liberty’s poll coincides with the launch of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s Human Rights Inquiry report. However, both the Commission and The Government have yet to educate the public about the Human Rights Act – the Liberty poll shows that only 10% remember seeing or receiving any information explaining the legislation.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3677 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors:

1. ComRes interviewed 1011 GB adults by telephone between 13th and 14th May 2009. Data were weighted to be representative demographically of all GB adults. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables available at www.comres.co.uk. or contact Liberty's press office.

2. The full text of Lord Bingham’s speech can be found here.

20090615In defiance of recent events, a poll released today by Liberty shows overwhelming support for human rights laws. Despite a week of the Government defending the unjust and unsafe control order system, the Metropolitan police accused of using “waterboarding” techniques with suspects and the BNP winning two European parliament seats, polling reveals that 97% think it is important that there is a law that protects rights and freedoms in the UK.
Liberty responds to House of Lords judgment on control ordersShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“If protecting the public is the top priority then Control Orders do not achieve it. Dangerous terrorists should not be in their living rooms but convicted and imprisoned. Innocent people should not be subjected to years and years of community punishment without trial. Control Orders are the worst of both worlds and the new Home Secretary should take this opportunity to learn from the mistakes of his predecessor.”

20090610Today the House of Lords ruled unanimously that the government has violated Article 6 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to fair trial as ‘controlees’ don’t even receive the gist of the allegations against them. Liberty believes that this is another body blow to the unfair and unsafe control order regime.
'I have lost my family, I have lost everything'. Courts once again consider control orders as controlee begs to leave the UK“I have lost my family, I have lost everything. Never can I see my family or my family see me again. Is this not torture I ask you Gordon Brown? If you fight the terrorists like this you make every Muslim a terrorist”

Controls orders (Tony Blair and Charles Clarke’s replacement for the controversial Belmarsh legislation), were established in 2005 and allow suspects to be tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others indefinitely without charge or trial.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“I can think of no better way for the Prime Minister to make a fresh start for his Government than to abandon the cruel and counter-productive punishments without trial instituted by his predecessor. This is also a great opportunity for the new Home Secretary to prove his commitment to human rights and fighting terrorism within the rule of law.”

Before eventually passing, the control order draft legislation “ping-ponged” between the House of Commons and the House of Lords and was debated for many hours prompting then Labour backbencher and first time rebel, Barbara Follett, to say;

“I know this is Britain and not South Africa or Burma but we must not underestimate the importance of what we are doing today and the message that it sends….these principles are the very basis of our democracy and our party. If we destroy them, it destroys us.”

The effect of this legislation is that some people have been subject to detention and community punishment for over seven years on the basis of the Home Secretary’s suspicions and secret evidence which the suspect will never see.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The 9-judge panel will decide whether controlees are entitled to an “irreducible minimum” of disclosure in order to satisfy Art.6 of the Human Rights Act. The Government says not – it all depends on the circumstances, and it is sometimes possible to have a fair hearing without any disclosure at all. The controlees say they must always have some idea of the case against them, whether by way of evidence or “gist”, in order to be able to challenge it.

2. In December 2001 Mahmoud Abu Rideh was detained in Belmarsh under the Anti- terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. After the Law Lords ruling in 2004, Mr Abu Rideh was served with a control order. Mr Abu Rideh’s wife and children have since left the UK for Jordan. The Home Secretary has refused to issue him with a travel pass. The conditions of his control order include the following;

- He shall not leave his residence between the hours of 7pm and 7am
 
- He shall not attend any pre-arranged meetings
 
- He shall report to the monitoring company by telephone; on the first occasion he leaves the residence; on the last occasion he returns to it; once between 04.45 & 05.15 every morning and once between 20.30 & 21.20 every evening
 
- Save for a fixed telephone line and one or more computers in the residence, he shall not use or keep any communications equipment (including but not limited to mobile phones, fax machines, pages and public telephones and/or internet facilities
 
- Any computer permitted into the residence must be disabled from connecting to the internet.

- He shall comply with any other prohibitions or restrictions on your movement as may be required by a police officer or any other person authorized by the Secretary of State

3. Barbara Follett (now Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport) lived in South Africa during apartheid and her first husband was served with a control order by the South African Government. This had ‘ a devastating effect’ on both him and the rest of the family.

3. The Government’s argument that it is impossible to prosecute terror suspects is fast unraveling. Liberty has suggested that unnecessary hurdles to prosecuting terror suspects can be overcome in the following ways:

- Remove the bar on intercept (phone tap) evidence in criminal trials because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges. The Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Head of MI5 have argued that it should be possible to use intercept evidence in court so that more terror suspects can be prosecuted.
 
- More resources for police and intelligence services.

20090610Today the Law Lords will once more consider the Kafkaesque procedure for Control Orders. Meanwhile one controlee, Mahmoud Abu Rideh subject to punishment without trial for 7 ½ years, writes a desperate letter to the Prime Minister begging for release from a system that has driven him to mental instability and attempts at suicide;Yvette Cooper urged to dump James Purnell’s drug tests for the unemployedIn a joint letter to the new Secretary of State, the heads of these three organisations urge her to drop provisions from the Welfare Reform Bill that would force people on job-seekers benefit to disclose private information about their drug and alcohol use. Anyone who refuses or fails to comply would face invasive drug and alcohol tests or lose their benefit payments.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Degrading poor people in the middle of a recession is no way for Labour to rediscover its soul or its vote. The smooth assassin may have thought it acceptable to force unemployed parents to choose between their dignity and feeding their kids. Surely Yvette Cooper knows better.”

The provisions in question – Clause 9, Schedule 3 of the Welfare Reform Bill – are due to be debated in the House of Lords tomorrow. Under this proposed legislation, someone claiming jobseekers allowance could have their benefit taken away if they are dependent on or “have a propensity to misuse” drugs or alcohol.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

1. Yvette Cooper is a former Human Rights Minister who was appointed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in last week’s Cabinet reshuffle. She takes over from James Purnell who oversaw the drafting of the Welfare Reform Bill.

2. Liberty’s joint briefing with the Royal College of Psychiatrists is available here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/joint-cte-stage-briefing-welfarereform-lords.pdf  

20090608Liberty is today joining forces with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National AIDS Trust to call on Yvette Cooper, the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to reverse James Purnell’s policy of submitting benefit claimants to compulsory drug and alcohol tests.
Politicians, artists and celebrities unite in 75 years of Liberty celebrationThe conference will host a diverse range of speakers including Sun columnist Jon Gaunt, head of counter-terrorism for the Metropolitan police, John Yates, former MP and veteran campaigner Tony Benn, filmmaker Gurinder Chadha and fashion designer Vivienne Westwood. Sessions at the conference will include the Human rights act, speech and protest, the war on terror, and privacy. Mr Benn was himself on the receiving end of the anti-terror powers when he was stopped and searched under controversial section 44 powers outside the Houses of Commons.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said;

“Born during the Depression, Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties) has lived through a World War, Cold War and War on Terror. Once more in challenging times, we come together from across and outside politics to explore the common values of the oldest unbroken democracy on Earth.”

The conference will mark 75 years since the formation of the National Council for Civil Liberties during the hunger marches of 1934.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

Liberty’s 75th Anniversary conference will be held at Methodist Central Hall on 6 June 2009. The full list of speakers include the following;

Diane Abbott MP • Kate Adie • Samira Ahmed • Camila Batmanghelidjh • Yasmin Alibhai-Brown • Tony Benn • Lord Bingham • Frances Butler • Gurinder Chadha • Shami Chakrabarti • Louise Christian • Nick Clegg MP • Madeleine Colvin • Iain Dale • Simon Davies • Jon Gaunt • Dominic Grieve MP • Afua Hirsch • Fiona Horlick • John Kampfner • Doreen Lawrence OBE • Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP • Ken Macdonald QC • Kevin Maguire • Patrick Mercer MP • Benet Middleton • Gareth Peirce • Dr Katherine Rake • Jack Straw MP • Mark Titchner • Vivienne Westwood • John Yates

20090603Politicians, journalists, activists and artists will join in Liberty’s celebratory 75th anniversary conference to be held on Saturday 6 June at Methodist Central Hall, London.
Liberty responds to Home Secretary’s departureShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said;

“Jacqui Smith was the first woman Home Secretary – an historic achievement not to be underestimated. Further, if political survival is a measure of success, nearly two years in one of the highest and hottest seats in Government is a perfectly reasonable tenancy.

Sadly, it is harder to find distinction in recent policy on home affairs.

The misguided and mercifully failed attempt to get 42-day detention without charge onto the statute book wasted over a year's worth of political energy and capital. The stubborn refusal to dump the dangerous and expensive folly of identity cards became symbolic not only of a creeping contempt for personal privacy, but of politics more generally out of touch.

To add insult to irony, a Secretary of State so careless with the presumption of innocence, found herself with many of her colleagues under the spotlight of scrutiny and suspicion.

It must be hoped that future home secretaries learn from this parable and that young women in particular are encouraged not deterred."

Jacqui Smith was appointed Home Secretary in June 2007.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831128

20090603The Home Secretary confirmed today that she would be standing down at the next cabinet re-shuffle.
Liberty welcomes 'stay of extradition'The case against Andrew is widely held to be seriously flawed yet until today it appeared he would be extradited with no opportunity for a British court to consider whether there is any case to answer.

The High Court today decided that Andrew’s case is of such public importance that the law lords should have the opportunity to consider it, if they so wish.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

“The shocking story of Andrew Symeou highlights the injustice of instant extradition. No one should be plucked from their home and dragged across the world without even basic evidence shown in a local court. We must address this terrible case but also rectify the whole extradition system which leaves everyone in Britain vulnerable to abuse.”

The evidence against Andrew includes statements given by two of his friends under duress from Greek police officers who reportedly beat them and withheld food and drink – statements which were immediately retracted after the two were released. There is also evidence suggesting police officers falsified evidence, and witness reports that Andrew was not at the club until three hours later have been ignored.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Liberty believes a person should not be extradited to stand trial in a foreign country without evidence being presented to a British court to prove there is a prima facie case against them.

2. Andrew Symeou is facing extradition under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW is based upon the presumption that EU countries all have fair and equal systems of justice which should remove the need for the home nation to scrutinise the fairness of extradition within the EU. This presumption is seriously open to question. Under an EAW a person sought by an EU country can be extradited – even if the extradition offence is not an offence in the United Kingdom, provided it carries a prison term of more than 12 months in the issuing member state. The EAW also abolishes the requirement to provide a prima facie case. This seriously increases the risk of injustice in such cases by removing the power of the High Court and Secretary of State to scrutinise the merits in an individual case.

3. The Extradition Act 2003 introduced a two-tier system of extradition depending on the identity of the requesting state. Under the Act, EU Member States who have implemented the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the surrender procedures between Member States are designated for the purposes of extradition by order made under part 1 of the Act. Other territories with whom the United Kingdom has extradition relations have been designated by order made under part 2 of the 2003 Act.

20090602Permission was today granted for a student to take his fight against extradition to the House of Lords. Andrew Symeou, 26, is due to be extradited to Greece on manslaughter charges.Government climb-down on secret inquestsThe controversial proposals have generated widespread concern about the consequences for bereaved families and the negative impact on public trust and confidence.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"We welcome this sane and humble climb-down by the Lord Chancellor. It was completely bizarre for a Government that has spent over a decade lecturing the public about victims' rights to attempt to exclude bereaved families from open justice.

Secret courts and parallel legal systems have mushroomed under New Labour but as we have learned in recent days there is no accountability without transparency."

Despite last minute amendments, the Government’s proposals would gravely limit transparency and increase executive control over the inquest process and could exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process. This could include inquests into highly contentious deaths such as deaths in custody or deaths of individuals where issues of the state’s broader conduct are raised for example an inquest into the death of a soldier killed in Iraq or the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Notes to editors

1. Read the Liberty, Justice and Inquest briefing on Clauses 11-12 of the Coroners & Justice Bill for Second Reading in the House of Lords as a PDF here.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3677 or 07973831128


20090515Human rights group Liberty today claimed victory for victims after the Government announced that the secret inquest provisions in the Coroners and Justice bill would be dropped.Liberty response to Home Office DNA Database proposalsShami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

“This well-spun proposal proves that the Home Secretary has yet to learn about the presumption of innocence and value of personal privacy in Britain. Wholly innocent people – including children will have their most intimate details stockpiled for years on a database that will remain massively out of step with the rest of the world. With regret we shall be forced to see her in court once more.”




20090507Hundreds of thousands of DNA profiles of innocent people are to be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling that the "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of suspects' DNA is unlawful.
Liberty condemn High Court extradition decisionThe evidence includes statements given by two of his friends while under duress from Greek police officers who reportedly beat them and withheld food and drink - statements which were immediately retracted after the two were released. There are also strong indications that Zante police officers falsified evidence, and witness reports that Andrew was not at the club until 3 hours later have been ignored.

Sabina Frediani, Campaigns Co-ordinator for Liberty, said;

“This alarming case highlights the dangers of summary extradition. No one should be sent anywhere, be it Europe, the US or elsewhere, without a case first being made in a local court - British justice should not be circumvented in this way. Extradition Watch, our new campaign, seeks to pressure Government to stop extradition without safeguards.”

Liberty believes a person should not be extradited to stand trial in a foreign country without evidence being presented to a British court to prove there is a prima facie case against them. If the crime is alleged to have occurred in whole or in part in the UK, then the defendant should not be extradited if a British judge considers the offence should be tried in the United Kingdom.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The European Arrest Warrant is based upon the presumption that EU countries all have fair and equal systems of justice which should remove the need for any other country to scrutinise the fairness of extradition to such a country. This presumption is seriously open to question. Under an EAW a person sought by an EU country can be extradited even if the extradition offence may not be an offence in the United Kingdom. The EAW also abolishes the requirement to provide a prima facie case. This seriously increases the risk of injustice in such cases by removing the power of the High Court and Secretary of State to scrutinise the merits in an individual case.

2. The Extradition Act 2003 introduced a two-tier system of extradition depending on the identity of the requesting state. Under the Act, EU Member States who have implemented the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the surrender procedures between Member States are designated for the purposes of extradition by order made under Part 1 of the Act. Some other territories with whom the United Kingdom has extradition relations have been designated by order made under Part 2 of the 2003 Act.

20090501Today, the High Court ruled that the extradition of Andrew Symeou must go ahead. Andrew Symeou, a young British man accused of manslaughter, is facing extradition to Greece under a European Arrest Warrant without a British court ever considering the evidence in his case.Liberty applauds former Home Secretary’s denunciation of ID cards schemeShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Better late than never, the current Home Secretary should learn from her predecessor’s humility and dump the financial, race equality and privacy disaster that is this scheme.

David Blunkett was once the Godfather of ID cards – in the light of his good sense conversion, lets all hope that this grand folly finally sleeps with the fishes.”

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.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. Liberty once called David Blunkett “the most authoritarian Home Secretary in living memory."

2. Liberty’s principal 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.

3. 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.

20090429Liberty today welcomed former Home Secretary David Blunkett’s dismissal of the identity cards scheme. David Blunkett first put forward the idea of compulsory ID cards when he was Home Secretary in 2001 but has now withdrawn his support for the unpopular plan.Liberty welcomes Government climb-down on centralised communications databaseWhile Liberty understands the importance of this data in the prevention and detection of serious crime and terrorism, it has voiced concerns about the dangers of centralising this data since the proposals were announced by the Home Office in October 2008.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“We applaud the Home Office climb-down on the super Big Brother database and thank the broad coalition of sensible voices who brought it about. It is a clear signal that the public interest in personal privacy can no longer be ignored. However, if companies are to be required to hold even more information than they do at present, concerns about access and use become even more important.”

“Let us look forward to this U-turn on communications data being followed by limiting DNA retention, dumping ID cards and a less callous approach to privacy protection more generally.”

Communications service providers (CSPs) already hold large amounts of communications data and an EU directive that came into force earlier this month now requires that data is retained for 12 months. The Government is now proposing that data generated by communications services based overseas by crossing networks in the UK be collected and retained by CSPs.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1) The Home Office consultation ‘Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment’ is available here http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/communications-data-consultation

2) An EU Directive requiring service providers in the UK to store communications data for 12 months was transposed into UK law by the Electronic Communications Data (EC Directive) Regulations 2008.This came into force on 6 April 2009. The transposition of the Directive essentially formalises the voluntary agreement between the Government and service providers which has been in place since 2003. Under the regulations service providers are now required to retain communications data for 12 months.

3) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) regulates the use and access of surveillance by public bodies. Communications data is just one type of surveillance which is regulated under the Act. Under RIPA hundreds of public bodies have access to communications data including over 400 local authorities. On 17 April the Government announced a long-overdue review of the RIPA which will look at, among other things, the purposes for which local authorities have access to surveillance and the types of surveillance they can use.
20090427In a consultation published today, the Government accepted the massive privacy implications of a centralised database holding a record of every email, phone call and text message and confirmed that this plan has been abandoned.Response to police search for information about Liberty in MP emailsShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

"Is it possible to be shocked, disappointed and yet not surprised? I am a human rights' lawyer and campaigner who has always had quite a lot of time for the police. They never approached me with this investigation and it is dispiriting to learn that my name became a keyword search for anti-terror officers.

I think this raises very serious questions about just how politicised, even McCarthyite, this operation was. We all look forward to answers from the new brooms at the Yard and from the Home Office."


20090420In response to revelations that Police who arrested the Conservative frontbencher Damian Green searched his private e-mails looking for information on Liberty (The Times, April 18 2009)
Full investigation into riot policing methods needed in the wake of G20 protestsOn 15 April 2009 Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ordered a full review of footage from the demonstration. Any serious cases of misconduct it uncovers will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said: “This timely statement from the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner will be welcomed by all Londoners. We welcome his remarks on peaceful protest and on officers being identifiable. We also welcome his comments on the worrying tactic of ‘kettling’ large groups of demonstrators. It seems to us that this practice risks increasing anger, increasing distress and increasing rather than diffusing any threat to public safety.”

The IPCC has received a deluge of complaints about excessive use of police force and police tactics at the G20 protests. Scotland Yard has suspended two police officers after footage emerged of an unprovoked police attack on Ian Tomlinson, who died shortly afterwards, and another film showed a sergeant striking a woman across the face with the back of his hand before hitting her legs with a baton.

Liberty's Director Shami Chakrabarti said it was essential that IPCC investigators did their job properly.

She said: "The clock is ticking for the IPCC. This is a body we want to believe in but they are not proving themselves capable. It failed its first big test with the inquiry into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. This investigation has to be got right in terms of speed, sanctions and transparency if there is to be any public confidence in this fledgling watchdog.”
20090417Liberty welcomes Metropolitan Police review of all footage from the G20 demonstration and urges speed and transparency in IPCC investigation.Liberty welcomes police investigation into Binyam Mohamed torture caseShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“We welcome today’s announcement that there will finally be a criminal investigation into Binyam Mohammed’s kidnap and torture. Whilst many will see the Attorney General’s announcement as coming better late than never, the five month delay in reporting such a serious suspected offence to the police is far from an ideal example of respect for the law.

We look forward to the Metropolitan Police investigation into this particular case but the wider public interest still requires a full judicial inquiry into all British involvement in extraordinary rendition.”

Contact: Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128


Notes to Editors

1) The Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, has been considering the allegations of British involvement in extraordinary rendition in this case for five months to date.

2) Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes torture an offence, anywhere in the world. The offence may either be committed by a public official or someone acting in an official capacity, or by someone else acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or someone acting in an official capacity. It follows that aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring torture anywhere in the world or conspiring to do so are also offences under British law.

3) Mr Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan in April 2002, and transferred to Morocco in July of that year before being moved to Kabul, a US military prison and finally Guantanamo. Whilst in Morocco, Mr Mohamed claims that his interrogators used personal information they could have only received from the British authorities. This included detailed information about his life in the UK, people he knew and his education. He was also shown photographs which his interrogators told him had been provided by MI5. Correspondence between MI5 and the US – which has been released as part of a high court judgement - seems to support these claims.

20090326The Attorney General announced today that she has asked the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to investigate British involvement in the alleged kidnap and torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed.
Battle against secret inquests moves to the House of LordsNarrowly passed in the House of Commons (263-229) the controversial proposals have generated widespread concern about the consequences for bereaved families and the negative impact on public trust and confidence

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“The strong rebellion against secret inquests will only encourage the House of Lords to stand firm once again. How dare the Government that spent 12 years lecturing us about victims’ rights seek to deprive bereaved families of the open justice that is the only point of an inquest? Whether in Brixton or Basra- those who die on the Government’s watch are entitled to better than this.

The secret inquest plan is already destroying the trust of numerous families who think it might be applied to them. National security can be protected within the jury system but the political embarrassment of soldiers killed by “friendly fire” should never be camouflaged from public view.”

Despite last minute amendments, the Government’s proposals would gravely limit transparency and increase executive control over the inquest process and could exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process. This could include inquests into highly contentious deaths such as deaths in custody or deaths of individuals where issues of the state’s broader conduct are raised for example an inquest into the death of a soldier killed in Iraq or the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3677 or 07973831128
20090324Human rights group Liberty said the battle against the Government’s secret inquest proposals will now be taken up in the House of Lords.‘What about the victims?’ - Inquest and Liberty hold parliamentary meeting on Government plans for secret inquestsPoliticians from across the political spectrum heard that despite last minute amendments, the Government’s proposals would gravely limit transparency and increase executive control over the inquest process and could exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process. This could include inquests into highly contentious deaths such as deaths in custody or deaths of individuals where issues of the state’s broader conduct are raised for example an inquest into the death of a soldier killed in Iraq or the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Susan Alexander said:

“The secret inquest provisions in the Bill are not significantly different from the clauses that the Government withdrew last year from the Counter-Terrorism Bill, at least from my point of view. They could still prevent a jury and me from seeing key evidence and having it properly tested in Court.

The inquest into Azelle’s death will not undermine the work of the police in protecting the public from serious crime, but the public interest will be badly damaged if the truth of what happened is obscured and all the lessons of this case cannot be learned.”

Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest said:

"INQUEST remains fundamentally opposed to these proposals. They amount to a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the coronial system in England and Wales; are fundamentally flawed; unsupported by evidence; disconnected from legal principles and have come about without any consultation with stakeholders. The proposals will completely undermine the stated aim of government to put bereaved families at the centre of the reformed inquest system and will damage public confidence in the Coroner Service as a whole."

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“What happened to all that rhetoric about rebalancing justice in favour of victims? This flawed policy forgets that the only point of an inquest is providing answers for bereaved families and the wider public. It is perfectly possible to protect sensitive material within an open jury system. Everything else is just politics.”

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3677 or 07973831128

Notes to editors

1. The Liberty, Justice and Inquest briefing on Clauses 11-13 of the Coroners & Justice Bill for Report Stage in the House of Commons can be found here:

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/1-policy-papers/index.shtml

2. The title of Inquest and Liberty’s parliamentary meeting was inspired by the following speech given by the Lord High Chancellor, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP on 28 October 2008 “But what about victims? The Government as a whole has worked very hard to give a central voice and priority to victims, but we hear far less often from these lobbies about the needs of the victim. I think that they sometimes forget who the victim is, so lost do they become in a fog of platitudes….”



3. The Coroners and Justice Bill will reach its Commons Report stage on Monday 23 March.


20090318Inquest and Liberty held a parliamentary meeting today on the secret inquest provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill. Chaired by Frank Dobson MP, parliamentarians were addressed by Susan Alexander, bereaved mother of Azelle Rodney who was shot dead by the Metropolitan Police in 2005, Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest and Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty.Liberty wins ruling against Home Secretary over Harmondsworth disturbanceLiberty brought the case on behalf of three detainees who claimed 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.

Anna Fairclough, Legal Officer at Liberty, said:

“With so many people languishing in immigration detention, it is shameful that the Home Secretary refused to investigate these very serious allegations of mistreatment. Today’s judgment leaves the Government nowhere to hide should anything of this nature happen again.”

The Court of Appeal found that by failing to conduct an independent inquiry into the disturbance, the Home Secretary breached Article 3 of the Human Rights Act which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.

Contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1) Today’s Court of Appeal judgment is in the case of ‘AM & others v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Kalyx Ltd’.

2) Disturbances broke out at Harmondsworth on 28 and 29 November 2006 over the treatment of detainees. The centre is privately run – by Kalyx Ltd. The Chief Inspector of Prisons visited Harmondsworth for an unannounced inspection on 17-21 July 2006 and her report was “undoubtedly the poorest report we have issued”. This report is available here. Kalyx Ltd argued in Court that the treatment of the detainees in question was not inhuman or degrading. This was firmly rejected by the Court of Appeal.

3) Notable extracts from today’s judgment are set out below:

Sedley LJ: “The Home Secretary…has failed to meet the United Kingdom’s obligation under article 3 of the ECHR to institute an independent inquiry, to which the claimants would have full access and which would make its findings public, into the handling of the disturbance which took place at Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Centre on 28-29 November 2006.”

Elias LJ: “It is not a prison, and the objective is to provide a relaxed regime… Sadly, this has not been achieved… A report made following an inspection shortly before the disturbance noted that officers ran the Centre as if it were a high security prison and that there were high levels of oppression and bullying. The inmates are in a subordinate and difficult situation – there was much evidence, for example, that many were afraid to complain of ill treatment… It is particularly important that the authorities must be alive to the very real potential for abusive behaviour towards such inmates.”

Elias LJ also noted the “many defects in the way in which Harmondsworth is run”.

4) For more information on this judgment or to arrange an interview with Liberty’s Legal Officer please contact the Liberty press office on 07973 831 128.
20090317The Court of Appeal has ruled today that the Government was wrong not to order an independent inquiry into allegations of mistreatment at Harmondsworth immigration detention centre in 2006.‘But what about the victims?’ - Inquest and Liberty to hold parliamentary meeting on Government plans for secret inquestsChaired by Frank Dobson MP, parliamentarians will be addressed by Susan Alexander, bereaved mother of Azelle Rodney, who was shot dead by the Metropolitan Police in 2005, Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest and Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty.

WHAT: “But what about Victims?” Inquest and Liberty briefing on secret inquest provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill

WHO: Susan Alexander, mother of Azelle Rodney, Inquest Co-Director Helen Shaw and Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti

WHEN: Wednesday 18 March 2009 at 12.30pm (immediately after PMQs)

WHERE: Committee Room 5, House of Commons

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3677 or 07973831128

Notes to editors

1. The title of Inquest and Liberty’s parliamentary meeting was inspired by the following speech given by the Lord High Chancellor, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP on 28 October 2008 “But what about victims? The Government as a whole has worked very hard to give a central voice and priority to victims, but we hear far less often from these lobbies about the needs of the victim. I think that they sometimes forget who the victim is, so lost do they become in a fog of platitudes….”

2. The Coroners and Justice Bill will reach its Commons Report stage on Monday 23 March.

20090316Inquest and Liberty will hold a parliamentary meeting on the secret inquest provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill.Coroners and Justice Bill could allow black-listing databasesOrder-making powers in Clause 152 of the Bill would allow people’s personal information to be shared between government departments, individuals or private companies without their consent.

Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy at Liberty, said:

“The black-listing scandal shows how closely people's privacy relates to their freedom of conscience, association and protection from discrimination. If Clause 152 of the Government’s Coroners and Justice Bill passes, future Ministers could order enormously broad information-sharing, meaning that black-listing databases could become routine."

The powers are widely drawn and the only limit on the type of information capable of being shared – and the people or companies it can be shared with – is that it needs to further a Government policy purpose.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. More information about the Information Commissioner’s investigation into black-listing databases within the construction industry can be found here (PDF)
 
2. Liberty’s briefing on the Coroners and Justice Bill can be found here (PDF) 
20090306Information-sharing powers in the Coroners and Justice Bill could allow the creation of databases like those seen in today’s construction industry black-listing scandal.Liberty urges MPs to vote down control ordersLiberty calls the system ‘unsafe and unfair", failing both as a method of controlling genuinely dangerous people and protecting innocent suspects – seven suspects on control orders have absconded and the High Court has impugned the legality of control orders on a number of occasions. The Government’s own reviewer of terrorism, Lord Carlile, has stated in his most recent report that control orders beyond two years are ineffective and unjustified.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Control orders constitute permanent punishment without trial and one of the worst legacies of the War on Terror. The innocent can be placed under permanent house arrest on the basis of secret intelligence, possibly flowing from torture – the guilty may easily remove their plastic tags, disappear and do their worst. ”

"Any MP who believes in fair trials and regaining Britain's moral authority must vote against renewing this cruel and self-defeating nonsense today."

As an alternative to control orders, Liberty suggests measures which will make it easier for police and prosecutors to bring criminal prosecutions against terror suspects. These include allowing the use of intercept evidence in the criminal courts and providing more resources for the intelligence and security community. In addition, since the Prevention of Terrorism Act was enacted, a range of new and broad terror-related offences have been added to the statute book making it easier for police to investigate and charge suspects.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Control orders were brought in by the 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 have included 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.

2. Liberty’s briefing on control order renewal can be found here.

3. The full report by the Government’s reviewer of terrorism on control orders can be found here.

4. The Government’s argument that it is impossible to prosecute terror suspects is fast unraveling. Liberty has suggested that unnecessary hurdles to prosecuting terror suspects can be overcome in the following ways:
- Remove the bar on intercept (phone tap) evidence in criminal trials because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges. The Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Head of MI5 have argued that it should be possible to use intercept evidence in court so that more terror suspects can be prosecuted.
- More resources for police and intelligence services.20090302Parliament will tomorrow debate whether the controversial control orders system will be renewed. Control orders, established in 2005, allow terror suspects to be tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others indefinitely without charge or trial.Happy Birthday LibertyIn a letter to the Manchester Guardian, it was announced that ‘In view of the general and alarming tendency to encroachment on the liberty of the citizen, there has recently been formed a Council for Civil Liberties’.

The Council’s first act was to take up the role of legal observers on the hunger march that took place in Hyde Park in February 1934.

Leading figures from the worlds of Politics, the Arts and Academia have sent messages of congratulations and support to Liberty:

"The work of Liberty is now even more important than it was when it was founded 75 years ago. The threats to our freedom come increasingly from state authoritarianism which now uses the war on terror as an excuse for doing so. Unless we stand against it we shall lose what we are being told we must defend." Tony Benn

“We are bombarded with a variable menu of national anniversaries, commemorations, exhortations to be proud of Britain. But I find it harder to think of anything more worthy of celebration than the fact that since 1934, in spite of whatever else, somewhere in our country, the struggle to maintain civil liberties has been kept alive. Congratulations to Liberty on 75 years!” Colin Firth

“The tradition of civil liberties is fundamental to any civilised society, and Liberty has been protecting the rights of the individual since 1934. The battle is far from over. In an over-governed nation it has become fashionable to disregard individual liberties, both great and small. This makes the task of protecting freedom and privacy even more vital. I wish Liberty a very happy 75th birthday.” Sir John Major

“Human rights are not unlike the rainforest: they're very easy to tear down and they need understanding and protection. We all need the oxygen of Liberty and I wish them a very successful 75th anniversary!”
Emma Thompson

“The struggle to defend and indeed to extend our civil liberties never ends. It has to embrace what is unpopular as well as what is popular. The information revolution poses new threats to privacy and individual freedom, the treatment of refugees and immigrants makes our commitment to tolerance and the rule of law unconvincing. Liberty has been an independent and fearless champion of our freedoms; congratulations on your birthday, you are badly needed now as 75 years ago when my mother was amongst those who set up the NCCL.” Baroness Shirley Williams

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The National Council of Civil Liberties was renamed ‘Liberty’ on 24 January 1989.

2. Find out more about Liberty’s history by reading our timeline.


2009022475 years ago today the human rights group Liberty (the National Council of Civil Liberties) was launched by a group of high profile figures of the day including HG Wells, Harold Laski, Vera Brittain and led by Ronald Kidd.
Court of Human Rights rules indefinite detention without charge wrongThe policy, which allowed foreign nationals to be detained without police interview, charge or trial whilst British suspects roamed free, failed to address the security issue whilst irrationally discriminating against one group of suspects.

Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti said;

“Of course the Court of Human Rights has vindicated the Law Lords 2004 ruling that detention without trial was a bad policy that failed to address either fairness or security.”

“£2 per day of unlawful detention is hardly hitting the jackpot. Whilst the damages will disappoint the detainees, they explode the myth of the human rights compensation culture.”

The Court said:

“The choice by the Government and Parliament of an immigration measure to address what was essentially a security issue had the result of failing adequately to address the problem, while imposing a disproportionate and discriminatory burden of indefinite detention on one group of suspected terrorists.”

The Government eventually replaced the unlawful detention policy with the current system of Control Orders, which allows indefinite house arrest for British and foreign national suspects alike on the basis of secret intelligence instead of charges. So whilst President Obama promises to close Guantanamo Bay, Britain’s policy of punishment without charge has run continuously from December 2001 and effectively continues to this day.

Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The Court of Human Rights judgment is available for download at http://www.echr.coe.int

2. The 2004 House of Lords ruling on the detention of foreign national terror suspects at Belmarsh can be found at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/56.html

3. Control Orders were brought in by the 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. A control order severely restricts who a person can meet, where they can go and all cases have involved electronic tagging. Restrictions have included 14-hour 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 he is under suspicion.
20090219In a judgment today, the Court of Human Rights has upheld the Law Lords 2004 landmark ruling that indefinite detention without charge for foreign terror suspects in Belmarsh prison was disproportionate and unlawful.
Foreign Office claims Obama blocking torture judgmentIn their submission to the Court, the Foreign Office said that the Obama administration had maintained a previous threat made by the Bush Government that full publication of a judgment relating to Binyam Mohamed would result in a reconsideration of intelligence sharing between the two countries. It was this submission that led the Court to rule that the full judgment could not be revealed. On the same day that this judgment was handed down, Downing Street denied knowledge of any threat from the new US administration regarding intelligence sharing.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“It would seem that the Foreign Office has misled the courts about the Obama administrations’ intentions towards the UK and Number 10 has denied all knowledge. If the right hand of Government doesn’t know what the left hand is doing then all the more reason for an urgent public inquiry into which hand was complicit in torture.”

In a strongly worded judgment, The Court expressed disappointment that ‘a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports … where the evidence was relevant to allegations of torture..’

Citing submissions by the Foreign office, the Court said:

“We have however been informed by Counsel for the Foreign Secretary that the position has not changed. Our current understanding is therefore that the position remains the same even after the making of Executive Orders by President Obama on 22 January 2009…”


Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831128

Notes to Editors

Full details of Liberty’s correspondence with the UK Government over British complicity in extraordinary rendition flights.

For a full copy of the judgement please contact the Liberty press office.

20090204In a High Court judgment handed down today it emerged that the British Government, in an attempt to prevent full disclosure of the UK involvement in torture, told the Court that disclosure would harm the intelligence sharing relationship between the US and the UK.Liberty and the American Civil Liberties Union build “new special relationship”The two leading transatlantic civil liberties groups also emphasised the importance of expressing international support for the Obama administration’s impressive first steps in this direction and encouraging the new president to reject any form of indefinite detention or extraordinary rendition.

Anthony Romero, Executive Director of American Civil Liberties Union, said;

“As a result of the Bush administration’s unlawful national security policies, the public image of the United States has been greatly diminished in the global community. The US and the UK have an historically special relationship and now is a perfect time for the two countries to work together to ensure that the US takes full and complete measures to restore the liberties that have been eroded over the last eight years.”

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“Liberty and the ACLU were founded during the last depression and have witnessed the rise and fall of rights and freedoms on both sides of the Atlantic. We weathered the misjudged “War on Terror” together and will now work harder than ever in support of the new President’s rejection of the false choice between our safety and our ideals.”

On Monday, Anthony Romero and Shami Chakrabarti addressed a parliamentary meeting well-attended by Peers and MPs from across the political spectrum. While welcoming the Obama administration’s positive first actions, Romero urged caution over ambiguities in the executive orders regarding the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees and the international crime of extraordinary rendition.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831128

Notes to editors

1. The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and works through the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution and laws of the United States.

2. Shami Chakrabarti and Anthony Romero both started at their respective organisations just before the September 11th attacks. They have since worked together on joint issues, including extraordinary rendition flights.

20090127Executive Director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, and Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti have met with Government officials and leading Parliamentarians with the purpose of establishing a new Anglo-American alliance based on respect for civil liberties and human rights.Day 22: International Privacy Day Celebrity Big Brother has once again come to an end. Ulrika (our long time favourite) walked away with the crown on Friday night after beating Ben, Verne, Coolio and Terry. While all the celebrities are finally free of the watchful eye of Big Brother, even outside the house they won’t be able to hide from increasing surveillance.

Wednesday 28 January marks international privacy day, an appropriate time to think about the levels of surveillance and data storage in the UK; for example, the beginning of the roll out of the ID card scheme and National Identity Register and proposals for a giant database holding information about every email, phone call and website visit in the UK. Visit Liberty’s privacy pages for more information and download our report ‘Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain’ to find out more.

While Celebrity Big Brother might be over for another year, Liberty’s work is far from over. Remember to join Liberty today and help us ensure that we can continue to protect civil liberties and promote human rights long into the future.20090126Day 21 ObamamaniaEven the Big Brother house was unable to escape “Obamamania” this week, as the housemates were shown a special screening of the new President’s inauguration speech. Continuing the election theme, the housemates took part in a series of “American” tasks, with Verne and Coolio transforming into bikers, and Tommy playing one of America’s favourite games; baseball.

Outside and inside the house, emotions were running high and even Coolio was moved to tears. Meanwhile, the first of what we expect to be Obama’s many changes in office is bigger news than Tommy and Latoya’s double eviction.

The new administration is expected to close down Guantanamo Bay prison within a year, following repeated promises during his election campaign and a draft executive order published on Wednesday. This important and symbolic act gives cause for hope of a significant change in America's attitude towards fundamental rights and freedoms.

In the light of the electrifying effect Barack Obama has had on political discourse the world over, there is real hope of positive side-effects in British domestic debates about the balance between liberty and security in the modern age.
20090122Liberty issues asylum election warningThe pledge, which will be announced at a Barnardo’s lecture, will ask parliamentarians to remember Britain’s history as a place of refuge for the persecuted and reject the use of xenophobia in discussions about asylum and immigration policy.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“The time has come for a clear and respectful warning to those who hold or seek power over the most vulnerable people in this land. Britain hates bullies and finds them no more attractive in red, blue or striped clothing. Do not underestimate the ocean of common decency in the oldest democracy on Earth. We will be watching.”

The lecture is the third event in Barnardo’s lecture series and will be held at 61 Whitehall from 6.15pm.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

1. Liberty’s Asylum Election Pledge:

“There is no place for racism and xenophobia in modern British politics. Nor is democratic debate advanced by the denigration of the most vulnerable in our country, including children and asylum seekers who do not enjoy the right to participate in elections.

I promise to remember the importance of refugee protection, even in free and wide-ranging debates about immigration policy. I will never play fast and loose with the proud tradition of a nation that must always offer succour to those in genuine fear of persecution.”

2. Liberty will mobilise its membership to urge MPs and electoral candidates to sign up and keep the promises in the pledge.

3. Find out more about Liberty’s Common Values campaign.
20090121In a speech to be given tonight, Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti will emphasise the importance of protecting asylum seekers in political debate and call for politicians to sign Liberty’s Asylum Election Pledge.Day 19: Celebrity glass ceilingIt’s not an easy task to swallow as the housemates have to take each other on in an eye watering chilli chomping task. The house remains segregated according to gender so it’s no surprise when nominations result in an all female eviction night once again with Michelle and Ulrika facing the public vote. Michelle gets the boot and we are still flying the flag for Ulrika (our firm favourite from the beginning).

So given the apparent glass ceiling in the Celebrity Big Brother house this year, it seems appropriate to make the theme of the day equality once again. You may have heard about the 'Mosquito' device, a contraption designed to deter young people from loitering near businesses by emitting a high pitched noise which causes severe discomfort. The frequency of the device is above the hearing range of people over 25.

This degrading and discriminatory device doesn’t encourage young people to act responsibly but presumes that they will not. Take a moment to think of the outcry if a device was introduced that caused blanket discomfort to people of one race or gender, rather than to our kids. What type of society uses a low-level sonic weapon on its children? The Mosquito has no place in a country that values its children and seeks to instil them with dignity and respect.

Find out more about the Buzz Off campaign and how you can support it and please contact us if you – or someone you know - has been affected by the ‘Mosquito’.
20090120Day 15: Even BB housemates have human rightsFriday night is eviction night so not long until another celebrity housemate is released to grace the pages of ‘Heat’ magazine once again. Who will it be? You decide. Traditionally, each evictee is shown a montage of their ‘best bits’ by Davina, who usually prompts them to reflect and comment on their behaviour in the house i.e. have they treated other housemates fairly and what have they learned during their time under 24 hour surveillance?

Liberty supporters will know that our new Common Values campaign is aimed at promoting respect for and understanding of human rights principles and the Human Rights Act. At the core of this campaign is the principle that everyone’s rights are equal. Rights and freedoms make for a better and fairer society and no-one should be treated unfairly because of their gender – or, for example, because of race or sexuality or age. Coolio would do well to remember this before verbally attacking housemates on account of their gender.

Please support Liberty’s Common Values campaign by asking a friend to visit www.commonvalues.org.uk and lend us their support. Together, we can encourage everyone to believe in fundamental rights and freedoms – shared values that protect every member of the human family and the society we seek to build together.20090116Day 14: Cardboard cars vs police searchesThis latest task is a taste of honey but there’s nothing sweet about it for Michelle and Verne. Nominations time again and it’s an all female eviction night ahead. Ulrika, Michelle, Mutya and Tina are clearly relieved as they are told that the home stretch might be in sight but as the finishing line gets ever closer, the gender divide in the house grows ever larger. It really is a case of men are from mars, women are from venus in the Celebrity Big Brother house.

In other news, Coolio and Tommy sit inside cardboard racing cars for the housemates’ latest task – they might prefer to use these cardboard contraptions to travel home from the house after reading about these new plans for train travel; no search, no ticket is what British Transport Police told MPs this week.

Presently, police do not have an automatic right to search passengers just because they are using public transport but are considering making it a condition when people purchase a ticket. Making the use of public transport dependent on agreeing to the police searching you is both unnecessary and completely disproportionate. I’d be tempted to keep hold of those cardboard cars if I were you..…
20090115Day 13: Supersize surveillance systemEquality issues are on the agenda today as Ulrika and Terry lock horns over Terry’s comment that Ulrika is “high handed” and thinks she is a superior celebrity housemate. One thing’s for sure, whether it’s celebrities or mere mortals in the Big Brother house, it doesn’t take long for tempers to fray.

The chilly temperatures mean that the housemates aren’t getting much outdoor exercise but if they were to be given an Olympic style task to complete, they may want to take a moment to ponder this – what if all the CCTV cameras in a city were linked and in turn hooked up to an advanced intelligence system that would allow a control room to covertly track vehicles and individuals anywhere they went? Is this the premise of a Hollywood blockbuster? The latest episode of Spooks perhaps? Not so – this supersize surveillance system is planned for London’s 2012 Olympics.

This doesn’t sound like Olympic spirit! But rather costly and potentially illegal without the authority of Parliament.




20090114Day 12: Best of British... Human Rights?The American housemates take part in a ‘best of British’ quiz covering subjects as diverse as Cockney rhyming slang and Posh Spice. Traditional British food was also on the quiz menu but perhaps a couple of human rights themed questions would give the housemates food for thought - in a recent poll, we found that only 13% of people could ever remember receiving or seeing any information from the Government about the much maligned Human Rights Act. Maybe CBB can help Liberty's Common Values campaign fill a much needed public information gap.

Before the quiz began, Big Brother made a disturbing announcement “each time Coolio, LaToya and Verne provide an incorrect answer, a buzzer will sound and all non-American housemates will receive a mild shock.” On the same day that President Bush calls Abu Ghraib “a disappointment” maybe it’s time to remind ourselves that this wouldn’t be so entertaining if you were on the receiving end of a taser gun; not so funny if you were one of the ‘non-American housemates’ around the world being subjected to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment.

Never right, never justified, never in a civilised society. Find out more about Liberty’s No Torture, No Compromise campaign.
20090113Day 11: Careless talk costs tokensDedicated fans of Celebrity Big Brother might remember Liberty getting a mention a few years back when one housemate modeled a Liberty t-shirt designed for us by our good friend, Vivienne Westwood.

No such fashion conscious celebrities this year unfortunately, but as we reach the halfway mark, 24 hour surveillance seems to be causing the usual bouts of cabin fever.
 
Why do housemates always end up talking about nominations? Have they not read the rules?! As any fan will know, careless talk costs tokens and Big Brother is quick to censor their gossiping and dole out punishments. Our current favourite housemate has to be Ulrika, the smart Swede with a quick wit who seems more than able to hold her own amongst all the sniping.

And today’s real life Big Brother nightmare? New rules requiring Internet service providers to keep records of every e-mail sent or received in the UK for up to a year will come into force in March this year. In addition to being invasive and costly, Liberty is concerned that the plans won’t stop here.

The government is already mooting plans not just to leave this stuff with the providers, but to create a central government database where they hold all the information. Given the numerous data loss fiascos during 2007/8 (amounting to 30 million pieces of individual data being lost by the Government in that year alone) do we really trust any government or organisation to keep our personal information safe? Maybe this should be a quiz question for the celebrity housemates……

20090112Liberty and the FSF team up to fight for human rights of football fansAlthough the fans were well-behaved and the pub landlord had no complaints, supporters were detained for up to four hours and transported by the police back to Stoke-on-Trent on coaches, missing the game. Deprived of toilet facilities on the coach, the supporters were instructed to urinate into cups, which spilled over the floor of the bus so that they had to sit with urine sloshing around their feet for the 40 mile journey back.

In recent weeks there have been more and more reports of police using section 27 to prevent fans attending football matches with the FSF receiving many first-hand accounts from supporters of clubs across England. The FSF is launching a campaign fund to defend the rights of football fans wrongly served with section 27 orders.

Anna Fairclough, Legal Officer for Liberty said:

“This is a football-loving country and it’s not only wrong, but also seriously counter-productive to treat all fans as hooligans. Liberty is proud to take on this case and intends to use the Human Rights Act to prevent abuses of this kind happening again.”

Malcolm Clarke, chair of the FSF, said:

“This legislation was clearly designed to allow the moving on of individuals or small groups misbehaving under the influence of alcohol. It was not designed to enable police to impose football banning orders at will across entire counties.

“Section 27 gives police instant power to walk all over the civil rights of supporters if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. No evidence appears to be needed, and no crime needs to have been committed.

“I would encourage any supporter who has been an unjustified victim of Section 27 to get in touch with the FSF and make their voice heard. We are taking this very, very seriously.”

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

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. Liberty is a human rights and civil liberties organisation. Liberty campaigns through the media, undertakes pioneering legal casework, lobbies Parliament and provides advice and assistance to members of the public and voluntary groups. Liberty is an independent membership organisation. The ‘Common Values’ campaign aims to broaden understanding and respect for human rights values. For more info http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/human-rights-act/index.shtml

2. The Football Supporters’ Federation (FSF) is the national supporters’ organisation for all football fans from England and Wales comprising over 142,000 individual fans and members of local supporters’ organisations from every club in the professional structure and many from the pyramid. For more info http://www.fsf.org.uk/about-the-fsf.php

3. Section 27 from the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006. No offence needs to have been committed for the legislation to be enforced and it gives police the power to move on people who they deem pose a risk of alcohol-related disorder from a specific locality. Section 27 allows police to move someone from a specified area for a period of up to 48 hours. For further information on Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 visit: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/directions-to-leave-locality?view=Binary
20081218Relying on section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act, the Greater Manchester Police rounded up 80 Stoke City fans who had stopped at a pub on the way to a match at Old Trafford on 15 November.British public overwhelmingly support Human RightsHowever, only 13% remember ever seeing or receiving any information from the Government explaining the legislation.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“Two days after the Lord Chancellor grabbed the headlines with his trashing of the Human Rights Act, this poll shows that Britain values its hard won rights and freedoms rather more than he thinks.

Of course fundamental freedoms belong to people not Governments, but it should still be a cause for embarrassment that our leaders have done so little to inform us about our rights.”

Liberty’s ComRes polling also revealed strong support for the various individual rights contained in the Act:

● 89% identified the right not to be tortured or degraded as either vital or important. Only 6% thought it was unnecessary.

● 95% identified both respect for privacy, family life and the home and the right to a fair trial as either vital or important. Only 1% thought it was unnecessary.

● 90% believed that freedom of speech, protest and association was either vital or important. Only 1% thought it was unnecessary.

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


NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. The ComRes poll was conducted November 28 – 30 2008. To view the findings in full, contact mairiclareR@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed on 10 December 1948. The principles of the UDHR were then embodied in European Convention of Human Rights with support from Winston Churchill’s Government and more recently in the Human Rights Act in 1998.

3. The Lord High Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, was interviewed in the Daily Mail on 8 December 2008. In the interview he said he had become frustrated with the way the Human Rights Act was being interpreted.

20081210Despite overwhelming public support for a law protecting rights and freedoms, new poll figures show the Government has failed to inform the public about the Human Rights Act. The polling, released on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, reveals overwhelming support for the contents of the Human Rights Act, with 96% believing that it is important that there is a law that protects rights and freedoms in Britain.Retaining DNA samples of innocents breaches human rightsLiberty welcomed the decision, which will require the UK Government to reconsider its policies under which the DNA of innocent individuals (those who have not been charged or cautioned) is permanently retained by police.

Last month the Home Office revealed that 2,324,879 recorded criminals (40 percent) in England and Wales did not actually have a DNA sample held on the NDNAD. At the same time, the Home Office reported that 857,366 innocent individuals’ profiles are currently held on the NDNAD. [1]

Liberty’s Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“This is one of the most strongly worded judgments that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights. That Court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British Government has shamefully failed to deliver.”

The Home Office is expected to hold a consultation about the retention of DNA following today’s judgment. The judgment would not have affected the outcome of any of the recent, high profile, convictions where DNA evidence has been a significant factor.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Anna Fairclough said:

"Forty percent of Britain's criminals are not on this database, but hundreds of thousands of innocent people are. Sweeping up the innocent with the guilty does not help fight crime. The Court of Human Rights has protected the privacy of British people so poorly let down by our own government."

Key passages of Grand Chamber Judgment of S and Marper v the United Kingdom include:

● The Court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. In particular, the data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender; the retention was not time-limited; and there existed only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or to have the materials destroyed.

● The Court expressed a particular concern at the risk of stigmitisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who had not been convicted of any offence and were entitled to the presumption of innocence, were treated in the same way as convicted persons. It was true that the retention of the applicants’ private data could not be equated with the voicing of suspicions. Nonetheless, their perception that they were not being treated as innocent was heightened by the fact that their data were retained indefinitely in the same way as the data of convicted persons, while the data of those who had never been suspected of an offence were required to be destroyed.

● It observed that the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private life interests. Any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bore special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard.

●In the Court’s view, the capacity of DNA profiles to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships between individuals was in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interfered with the right to the private life of those individuals. The possibility created by DNA profiles for drawing inferences about ethnic origin made their retention all the more sensitive and susceptible of affecting the right to private life. The Court concluded that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8.1 of the Convention.

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


Notes to Editors


Background on S and Marper v United Kingdom

1. Liberty agrees that a DNA database can be a valuable crime detection tool. However, repeated legislative changes have rolled out retention policy by stealth so that anyone arrested for even very minor offences can have their DNA held for the rest of their life, even if they have been mistakenly arrested. DNA is relevant only to a small number of serious offences, mainly involving sexual assault or violence. Liberty believes that the correct and proportionate approach to the National DNA Database would be based on allowing retention of DNA for those convicted or cautioned of these types of serious offence. This approach is the one adopted by nearly every EU and other comparable state.

2. S & Marper v United Kingdom, heard in the European Court of Human Rights on 27 February 2008, establishes if the automatic retention of DNA samples, profiles and fingerprints from those who are not convicted of any offence is a breach of the right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The government has repeatedly said it has no plans to create a universal database because it does not think the population is ready for the civil liberties implications of that. Liberty believes that the present arbitrary basis on which the database is built is both unsustainable and unjustifiable.

3. S & Marper concerns the legality of amendments to s64 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which enable the police to retain bodily samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints from anyone arrested for a recordable offence, whether or not they are charged, prosecuted or convicted. Virtually all offences (except the most trivial) are recordable. Current Government policy is to retain this information, including DNA on the National DNA Database (NDNAD), until the individual dies or reaches 100 years old. Samples, profiles and fingerprints can be destroyed on request in exceptional circumstances.

Facts



S was arrested in January 2001 when he was an 11 year old boy. He has no previous convictions, cautions or warnings. He was charged with the offence of attempted robbery and his fingerprints and samples were taken. Following a trial on 14.6.01 S was acquitted. He subsequently sought through his solicitors the destruction of his samples and fingerprints, but the police refused because of the legislative amendments referred to above (which came into force with retrospective effect on 11.5.01).

Marper was 38 when he was arrested in March 2001. He had no previous convictions. He was charged with harassment of his partner and his fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. By the time of a pre-trial review in May 2001 he had reconciled with his partner who no longer wished to press charges. The proceedings were discontinued. The police refused his request for the destruction of his samples and fingerprints.


European Court of Human Rights



S & Marper applied to the ECtHR to raise the following legal questions:

1.Is there any justification for keeping the original bodily samples from which DNA profiles are generated? Whilst the profiles reveal a limited amount of information about an individual, the samples contain that person’s complete genetic makeup and to retain them requires a very strong justification which the government has not supplied. The government says the samples are needed for quality control purposes and in case it might need to upgrade the database in future. Liberty does not accept this. A future upgrade of the database is a hypothetical possibility which does not justify retention of the samples now. It is likely that the database will soon be so large that an upgrade of the all the profiles is in any event an unrealistic option.

2. Is there sufficient justification for keeping DNA profiles from those not convicted of any offence? Although the profiles (a numerical representation of part of a person’s DNA) may be difficult to decipher to the untrained eye, there are a number of major privacy issues that arise from their retention on the database. 

a)  Research is carried out on the database without the consent of those whose profiles are on it. This is only supposed to be for the ‘prevention or detection of crime’ but that is interpreted very broadly so that research into ethnicity for example would be acceptable provided it can be loosely associated with crime prevention or detection.

b)  The NDNAD has an electronic link to the Police National Computer to enable the police to use it for intelligence purposes. The PNC is accessible from over 120,000 terminals in the UK, including non-police bodies. Previously, records held on the PNC were ‘weeded’ so that if you were acquitted or no proceedings were brought, the PNC record would be removed after around 40 days. Now, because of the link between the NDNAD and the PNC and because DNA profiles are kept until death/age 100, the PNC records are also kept. As a solution to the legal implications of this, the police propose to mask some of the information from ‘non-police users’ of the PNC but the system is not yet fully operational. Further, the Information Commissioner (ICO) considers that for the police to keep all this information even for themselves breaches the Data Protection Act 1998.

3. Britain’s DNA database is proportionately the largest in the world. Approximately 4.5 million people have their DNA permanently retained on the NDNAD.

20081204The DNA profiles of roughly 850,000 innocent people should be taken off the National DNA Database (NDNAD) following a European Court of Human Rights judgment today said Liberty. Two Britons whose DNA was retained by police brought the legal challenge, claiming that their inclusion on the NDNAD continued to cast suspicion on them after they had been cleared of any wrong-doing.New Citizenship Bill to bring compulsory ID cards via the back doorLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“Sneaking in compulsory identity cards via the back door of immigration law is a cynical escalation of this expensive and intrusive scheme.”

“In times of economic hardship, it’s good to see a bit less home office legislation but what there is leaves a lot to be desired.”

“We hope to see the right of peaceful protest returned to Parliament Square in the optimistically titled ‘Constitutional Renewal bill’.”

The Queen’s speech is expected to introduce the following home affairs legislation:

● Immigration and Citizenship Bill extends the categories of persons who have the power to require a valid identity document to be produced by individuals in the UK who have previously traveled outside the UK; introduces a new route to citizenship which could leave migrant workers, refugees and asylum seekers in “limbo” without access to public services and employment safeguards for longer periods; and erodes appeal rights for anyone whose immigration permission has been cancelled after their arrival in the UK.

● Coroners and Death Certification Bill is expected to contain the controversial measures to hold inquests without juries and to allow a government Minister to directly appoint coroners for specific inquests. After fierce debate earlier this year, this power was removed from the now Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.

● Policing & Crime Reduction Bill includes greater use of uniforms for offenders and replaces local councillor members with directly elected policing representatives to reform Police Authorities.

● Constitutional Renewal Bill is expected to repeal sections 132-138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA) which banned unauthorized peaceful protest within a one kilometre zone surrounding Westminster. For the last three years, Liberty has campaigned for peaceful protest to be allowed in Westminster and is currently challenging the ban in the European Court of Human Rights.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
20081202New powers to establish compulsory identity cards via the back door are to be introduced in the Immigration and Citizenship bill in the Queen’s speech tomorrow, said Liberty. Powers to examine identity documents, previously thought to apply only in UK ports of entry, will be extended through hidden clauses in the bill to criminalize anyone in Britain who has ever left the country and fails to produce identity papers upon demand.Liberty concerned about heavy-handed tactics against opposition politicianLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The fundamental duty of the Metropolitan police is to protect Londoners from harm, not the Government from political embarrassment. Sending nine counter-terror officers to search and arrest an opposition politician who poses no flight risk leaves the Met with a great deal of explaining to do in due course.”

“Liberty has no intention in siding with any political party, still less of interfering with an ongoing police investigation, but we feel duty bound to raise important operational, legal and Constitutional questions about this incident.”

Liberty believes this incident raises the following questions:

● In the absence of any national security or official secrets implication, why is the criminal law (as opposed to internal discipline or dismissal) even in play as a means of dealing with employee discipline within the public service?

● Why was a serving Member of Parliament who posed no flight risk or risk to the public arrested rather than being invited to attend for interview (as was the case with the former Prime Minister)?

● Who decided that it was in the public interest to employ criminal justice tools to investigate an elected representative suspected of presenting information to the public?

● Why such a heavy- handed operation with so many officers searching Mr Green’s London flat?

● Why was it decided that he should be arrested and his home and House of Commons office whilst Parliament was not sitting so that questions could not be raised there?

● Who informed the media of Mr Green’s arrest?

● Given that this whole matter relates to an alleged Home Office whistleblower, who in that department knew of the operation against Mr Green?

Legal background on “misfeasance in public office”

The common law offence of misfeasance in public office was recently defined by the Court of Appeal as: “a public officer acting as such who wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification”.

To be guilty of aiding and abetting you have to have participated in the act. If you take no part in it and do not act in concert with the person who commits it, you do not become an aider and abettor merely because you do not endeavour to prevent to the offence, or fail to apprehend the offender. Encouragement can amount to participation, but mere voluntary presence which in fact encourages the principal is not enough.

The protections of the whistle-blowing legislation (in the Employment Rights Act 1996) do not apply if the disclosure constitutes a criminal offence – but that may be circular, because making a protected disclosure could amount to “reasonable excuse or justification”.

There are a number of legal hoops to get through in order to be protected as a whistleblower:

- The information must, in the reasonable belief of the employee, tend to show:

o Criminality, or

o Breach of a legal obligation, or

o Miscarriage of justice, or

o Danger to health and safety, or

o Damage to environment, or

o Concealment of any of the above.

- The disclosure must be made in good faith.

- It must be made to the employer (or a Minister, in the case of civil servants), unless:

o It discloses an “exceptionally serious failure”, or

o The employee reasonably believes that he will be subjected to a detriment as a result or that the information will be concealed, or

o The employee has previously made the disclosure to the employer and no action was taken.

- If the disclosure is made to a third party:

o The employee must believe the information to be substantially true, and

o The disclosure must not be made for personal gain, and

o It must be reasonable to make the disclosure in all the circumstances.

If you satisfy all of that, your employer must not sack you or subject you to a detriment as a result of making the disclosure.

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

Notes to Editors

1. In 2004, Liberty successfully represented whistle-blower Katharine Gun, a former GCHQ employee who was charged under the Official Secrets Act after she disclosed that the American National Security Agency had asked for British help in spying on delegations to the UN Security Council in the run-up to the Iraq War.
20081128Shadow Immigration Secretary Damian Green’s arrest raises serious questions about the conduct of the Metropolitan police, says LibertyThe human rights group Liberty expressed concern about the heavy-handed arrest of Shadow Immigration Secretary Damian Green for allegedly “aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office” yesterday. Liberty was dismayed that on the eve of appointing a new Commissioner, the Metropolitan Police may have yet to learn important lessons about the dangers of becoming embroiled in politics.Liberty to support “shock jock” Jon Gaunt in battle with talkSport radioGaunt is bringing the legal challenge after his contract as a freelance presenter with the station was terminated on 19 November, two weeks after he called a Redbridge Council representative a 'Nazi', a 'Health Nazi' and an 'ignorant pig' during an on-air discussion about the Council's ban on placing vulnerable children with foster parents who smoke. Gaunt admits his emotions ran high during the interview because as a child he spent two months in care following the sudden death of his mother.

In a letter sent to talkSport radio on behalf of Gaunt, Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“…As someone who has been on the receiving end of Jon Gaunt’s blunt polemic in print and on the radio, I believe that the airwaves of a great democracy would be the poorer for his absence. I urge you to reinstate Mr Gaunt’s programme without delay and have offered him support in the unlikely and unfortunate event that recourse to the Human Rights Act proves necessary.”

Gaunt, also a columnist for the Sun newspaper, has a reputation of being a controversial figure on radio and last year received 48 individual Ofcom complaints. His controversial interview with the Redbridge Council representative took place on 7 November, followed by an investigation on 17 November by UTV Radio (talkSport’s parent company). Gaunt received a notification letter terminating his employment on 19 November.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3831 128

Notes to Editors

1. Jon Gaunt called Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti the “most dangerous woman in Britain,” in his column in the Sun newspaper on June 19 2007. He frequently disparaged the human rights group on “The Jon Gaunt Show.”

2. Last month, BBC Radio Two radio presenter Russell Brand resigned and BBC TV presenter Jonathan Ross was suspended after a controversial broadcast of Brand and Ross abusing the elderly actor Andrew Sachs and disparaging his granddaughter Georgina Baillie was aired on 18 October.

3. Full text of letter from Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti to talkSport Radio dated 24 November 2008:

“I am writing on behalf of Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties) in relation to the termination of Jon Gaunt’s broadcasting contract with talkSPORT and your parent company.

We understand that the grounds given for summary termination are Mr Gaunt’s on-air references to the “health Nazis” he felt responsible for banning smokers from fostering children in Redbridge. This strikes us as the most bizarre and disproportionate approach to someone who was no doubt contracted to excite political debate amongst a whole host of listeners who might not normally engage with news and current affairs programmes.

For present purposes, we make no comment on the substance of the childcare policy in question. However we must remind you that any court must read Mr Gaunt’s contract in the light of his right to free expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. Whilst this is far from an absolute right (particularly in the context of broadcasting), to be meaningful it must extend to contentious as well as consensual speech and we find it hard to envisage how your actions could possibly constitute a proportionate and lawful response to the present facts.

Whilst we appreciate that recent weeks have been a delicate time for all broadcasters, we see Mr Gaunt’s case as materially different from the now notorious example of privacy intrusion and broadcast bullying that the BBC has done its best to grapple with. Further, whilst Mr Gaunt’s style may not be to everyone’s taste, it is our view that no reasonable listener could have construed his comments in context as accusing the subjects of involvement in or association with Nazism.

From a personal point of view as someone who has been on the receiving end of Jon Gaunt’s blunt polemic in print and on the radio, I believe that the airwaves of a great democracy would be the poorer for his absence. I urge you to reinstate Mr Gaunt’s programme without delay and have offered him support in the unlikely and unfortunate event that recourse to the Human Rights Act proves necessary.”

20081125Sacked “shock jock” Jon Gaunt today welcomed the support of human rights group Liberty in his legal battle against talkSport radio.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 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.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 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 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.

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.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.Liberty Director says police independence undermined by government interference in annual Police Foundation lectureHer recommendations include:

● drastic reductions in Whitehall targets and a moratorium on additional police powers pending the evaluation of existing laws

● development of independent mechanisms to ensure good governance instead of further central and local electoral accountability of police forces

● setting of ethical guidelines for police officers who speak publicly on matters of contested opinion rather than hard fact

● parliamentary examination of the role and constitutional function of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti will say in her address:

“As law and order has moved up the political agenda, so the pressures on the police service and its independence have increased. Rarely does a day go by without a new political proposal for greater “accountability” on the one hand, or a serving police officer advocating further powers on the other. Yet umpteen new criminal offences, police powers and other broad laws from Parliament have been matched by Government targets. Might it not be possible for professional police discretion and fundamental rights and freedoms to march hand in hand?”

“I can certainly sympathise with chief constables who might prefer the microphone to the truncheon and see why ministers love the feel of a bullet proof vest. I can only ask those with senior roles in policing and politics to beware the real dangers of continued constitutional cross-dressing.”

Contact Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

The Police Foundation John Harris Memorial Lecture will be held at 18:00 on 2nd July 2008 at Draper's Hall in the City of London EC2. Admittance is by ticket only. If you would like to attend please contact sue.roberts@police-foundation.org.uk or call 020 7582 3744.

Previous Police Foundation John Harris Memorial Lectures have been delivered by five former Home Secretaries (the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP, the Rt Hon Michael Howard, the Rt Hon Kenneth Baker, the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, and the Rt Hon Lord Denning); four former Metropolitan Police Commissioners (Sir John Stevens, Sir Paul Condon, Sir Peter Imbert, and Sir Kenneth Newman); and Leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron and former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

For a full copy of Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti’s speech, entitled “A Thinning Blue Line? Police Independence and the Rule of Law” contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk
 
To acknowledge the unique contribution of Lord Harris of Greenwich, the founder of the Police Foundation, its Annual Lecture was renamed following his death in April 2001 as the 'John Harris Memorial Lecture'.

20080701In a speech tomorrow to senior police officers, politicians and judges, Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti will say that the role of the police has been undermined by political pressure from successive governments. Chakrabarti is to deliver the annual Police Foundation’s John Harris Memorial Lecture at Draper Hall at 18:00 on 2 July 2008.Government must review Regulation of Investigatory Powers ActThe ECHR agreed with human rights group Liberty that surveillance law and practice must be tighter to protect individual privacy rights.

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

“The Court of Human Rights has rightly found that greater accessibility and accountability is required to ensure respect for the privacy of thousands of innocent people. While secret surveillance is a valuable tool, the mechanisms for intercepting our telephone calls and e-mails should be as open and accountable as possible, and should ensure proportionate use of very wide powers.”

The ECHR referred to German authorities as an example of best practice in surveillance techniques, in part, because they ensured that monitoring of communications is suited to each investigation and required bi-annual reviews of the need to store the materials.

Gareth Crossman, Liberty’s Policy Director and leading expert on privacy rights, said:

“This judgement highlights the wider problem of excessive surveillance undermining public trust. Whether it’s fishing expeditions of our overseas phone calls or local councils using targeted surveillance to check on school catchment areas, we need a prompt review of the broad powers in RIPA.”

In the judgement, the ECHR states that it, “does not consider that the domestic law at the relevant time indicated with sufficient clarity, so as to provide adequate protection against abuse of power, the scope or manner of exercise of the very wide discretion conferred on the State to intercept and examine external communications. In particular, it did not, as required by the Court’s case-law, set out in a form accessible to the public any indication of the procedure to be followed for selecting for examination, sharing, storing and destroying intercepted material. The interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 8 (the right to privacy) was not, therefore, “in accordance with the law.”

Mark Kelly, Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, added that:

“The Court has found that the United Kingdom’s relatively sophisticated rules on data interception have failed to prevent unlawful interference with privacy rights. This has clear implications for many other Council of Europe member states, including Ireland. Our lax data interception regime will require a thorough overhaul in order to ensure that it meets the standards required by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8.”

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

Notes to Editors

1. The judgement by the European Court of Human Rights in Case of Liberty and Others v The United Kingdom (application no. 582443/00) was handed down on 1 July 2008. The case was brought by Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties), the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and British Irish Rights Watch.

2. The Court recognized that the 1985 Interception of Communications Act failed to provide the accessibility and accountability needed to ensure respect for the privacy of thousands of innocent people. Since the case was brought, the 1985 Act was replaced with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

20080701In a significant judgement today, the European Court of Human Rights found that UK surveillance laws had lacked the necessary clarity and accountability to prevent abuses of power when used to intercept cross-border communications.Liberty overwhelmed by donation from Desmond Elliott Prize winner Nikita LalwaniIn a moving speech at the announcement of the inaugural Desmond Elliott Prize last night, winner Nikita Lalwani said:

“In the UK right now, I don't think we can take basic elements of personal freedom for granted. Liberty is an organisation who campaign and fight for our rights as individuals across the board and I am glad they exist.”

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“We are overwhelmed by Nikita Lalwani’s generosity in giving her hard won prize money to Liberty. In tough times it is so heartening to see an acclaimed writer recognizing the dangers of complacency about human rights in Britain. For a national campaigning organisation of only 25 staff, this kind of donation will make a real difference.”

Liberty is also known as the National Council for Civil Liberties. Founded in 1934, Liberty is a cross party, non-party membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in England and Wales. Liberty promotes the values of individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness as the foundations of a democratic society.

Nikita Lalwani was awarded the Desmond Elliott prize for her first novel Gifted, cited by The Bookseller as “one of the most coveted British fiction debuts of the year.”

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
20080627Liberty today expressed profound thanks to prize-winning author Nikita Lalwani, who has donated her £10,000 Desmond Elliott Prize award to the human rights group.Liberty calls for independent investigation into Harmondsworth disturbanceLiberty is bringing the legal challenge on behalf of three individual 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. Permission to judicially review the Home Office and Kalyx Ltd (the contractor running the centre) was granted by the High Court in March.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Alex Gask, who brought the legal challenge, said:

“This appalling mistreatment of immigration detainees will only be stopped if exposed through a root and branch independent inquiry. It is shameful that these men were abandoned to pain, fear and hunger while in UK detention.”

One detainee told how he was taken to the centre's medical clinic suffering from a bad back. 'They just abandoned me,' the man said. 'There was no doctor and, when I asked where the doctor was, the detention officers laughed at me ... One of them stepped on the hem of my trousers to make me fall over. He then started laughing and called me a "fucking negro".'

In January 2008, the Border and Immigration Agency’s race relations audit found that repeated patterns of alleged racist incidents at Harmondsworth detention centre were missed by the in-house investigation process and that regular taunting of detainees by some officers went unchallenged.

The disturbance in November 2006 allegedly began shortly after the publication of a damning report on conditions in the centre by the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMIP). Four detainees were acquitted of conspiracy to commit violent disorder in February 2008.

Liberty will argue that the inquiry should cover the appalling conditions of detention under the Home Office and Kalyx Ltd which led to the disturbance taking place. Evidence from the claimants and other witnesses about the conditions in Harmondsworth substantiate the HMIP report, including: • an individual with HIV/AIDs being “outed” by prison officials and subsequently abused by other detainees • an individual with diabetes being denied insulin treatment • an individual with a visible skin disease bullied by prison officials • arbitrary solitary confinement • no effective complaints procedure • guards using racist taunts and beating detainees without provocation • detainees beaten by guards for such behaviour as requesting the faxes sent them by their lawyers.

The Home Office’s investigation into the disturbance led by Robert Whalley and published in July 2007 found that, “the underlying causes are still there and, without any changes, the same thing could happen again at either establishment." Not a single detainee was spoken to throughout the Home Office investigation.

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

Notes to Editors

1. The High Court of Justice will hold a judicial review on Monday and Tuesday 23-24 June 2008 on behalf of three claimants who were detained at Harmondsworth detention centre in November 2006 against the Secretary of State for the Home Office and Kalyx Limited (formerly “UK Detention Services Ltd.”) Liberty argues that the Home Office is in violation of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment by failing to conduct an independent inquiry into the disturbance. For a copy of the application contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. Liberty has compiled Harmondsworth detainees’ witness statements about the conditions in Harmondsworth both during and before the disturbance. The statements reveal that solitary confinement as a punishment for speaking out at Harmondsworth is common, according to Liberty’s witnesses. 'If we made a complaint we would be given a warning,' one man known as 'K' told Liberty. 'If we were given three warnings, we would be put in an isolated cell. We were scared of making complaints against officers because we expected to be treated badly if we did. We were treated like pigs and very unfairly, as if we were serious criminals.'

3. Anne Owers, Chief Inspector Prisons, visited Harmondsworth for an unannounced inspection on 17-21 July 2006. Her report on this inspection, published on 28 November 2006 was “undoubtedly the poorest report we have issued on an IRC”. This report is available here.

20080620On Monday 23 June, the High Court will determine whether an independent investigation must be held after vulnerable detainees were locked in flooded cells without food or water while fires burned during a disturbance in Harmondsworth detention centre.
Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti's letter to Secretary of State Andy Burnham

Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Culture Media & Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH

19th June 2008

Secretary of State

I am writing in relation to your recent article in the ironically titled “Progress” magazine. In that article you set out to smear my dealings with the former Shadow Home Secretary. I must say that I find this behaviour curious, coming as it does from a Cabinet Minister; let alone someone with a partner and family of his own.

By your comments you debase not only a great office of State but the vital debate about fundamental rights and freedoms in this country. Indeed you seem reluctant to engage in that debate except in this tawdry fashion.

I look forward to your written apology as I’m sure does Mrs Davis. If on the other hand you choose to continue down the path of innuendo and attempted character assassination, you will find that the privileged legal protection of the parliament chamber does not extend to slurs made in the wider public domain. The fruits of any legal action will of course go to Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties).

Sincerely,

Shami Chakrabarti

Director
Liberty
21 Tabard Street
London SE1 4LA

cc:
The Prime Minister
The Attorney General



Press contact: Jen Corlew 07973 831 128
20080619Letter from Liberty Director to Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in response to recent article in Progress magazine.Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti responds to David Davis resignation in protest of last night's vote on 42 day pre-charge detentionLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“Last night’s debate and the brave Labour rebels in particular, show that democrats from across the spectrum care passionately about rights and freedoms. MPs of all parties hold courage and conviction about these values and few more so than David Davis. The 42-day policy is a divisive and counterproductive folly and not the first of its kind. Liberty and security can march hand in hand; we don’t defeat terrorism by bowing to it.”

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


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Counter-Terror Bill will now continue to the House of Lords but its 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.

2. For a copy of Liberty’s briefings on the Report Stage of the Counter-Terrorism Bill or Liberty’s short briefing, “Understanding the pre-charge detention debate” contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

3. In a Liberty-commissioned You-Gov poll in March 2008, 54 percent believed that the Government’s motivation for extending pre-charge detention periods to 42 days was because it wants to look “tough on terror.” The YouGov online survey sample involved 1,926 adults and was undertaken from 25th – 27th March 2008.

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 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. Liberty’s Charge or Release campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies has run in national newspapers and been displayed on billboards across London.  www.chargeorrelease.com

6. 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”




20080612Response to the resignation of Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, who will run for re-election on a civil liberties platform including his opposition to extending pre-charge detention for terror suspects to 42 days.Battle against extending pre-charge detention moves to House of LordsLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“Whilst disappointed, Liberty pays tribute to the brave parliamentarians of all stripes who held their nerve against the pressures of party politics and the terrorists’ attempts to provoke us to abandon our values. Recent years have shown how forgetting Britain’s moral compass has left our country less safe; so on to the House of Lords- once more the guardian of fundamental rights.”

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 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, 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 Counter-Terror Bill will now continue to the House of Lords but its 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.

2. For a copy of Liberty’s briefings on the Report Stage of the Counter-Terrorism Bill or Liberty’s short briefing, “Understanding the pre-charge detention debate” contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk 

3. In a Liberty-commissioned You-Gov poll in March 2008, 54 percent believed that the Government’s motivation for extending pre-charge detention periods to 42 days was because it wants to look “tough on terror.” The YouGov online survey sample involved 1,926 adults and was undertaken from 25th – 27th March 2008.

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 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. Liberty’s Charge or Release campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies has run in national newspapers and been displayed on billboards across London. www.chargeorrelease.com

6. 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”


20080611Human rights group Liberty said the battle against the Government’s Counter-Terror Bill proposals to detain suspects for 42 days without charge will now be taken up in the House of Lords. Narrowly passed in the House of Commons today (315-306), the controversial proposals have generated widespread concern about the negative impact on civil liberties and community relations.Celebrities and MPs join Liberty for Westminster protest against Government’s Counter-Terror plansLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“Releasing 42 balloons symbolises our hope that tomorrow Parliamentarians will agree that great democracies don’t lock people up for 42 days without charge.”

WHAT: Liberty and supporters to simultaneously release 42 balloons to protest plans to extend pre-charge detention for terror suspects for 42 days.

WHO: Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti; Honor Blackman, Vivienne Westwood, David Davis MP, Dianne Abbott MP, Chris Huhne MP and others.

WHEN: Tuesday 10 June 2008, short speech at 16:25 followed by simultaneous 42 balloons release at 16:30. Participants will be available for interviews between 16:30 – 16:45.

WHERE: Old Palace Yard, opposite St Stephen's Gate entrance to Houses of Parliament. Click here for map.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
20080610Liberty will be joined by actor Honor Blackman, designer Vivienne Westwood, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, Labour MP Diane Abbott, and Lib-Dem Chris Huhne MP in a protest outside Westminster on the eve of the vote on Government plans to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. Liberty opposes extending pre-charge detention limits which will promote injustice and alienate Muslim communities."Up against the buffers": Fact and fiction about the existing 28 day pre-charge detention limit Operation Overt, following the failed plot at Heathrow in August 2006, has been cited as one of the most complex counter-terrorism investigations in British history. As such, it has been repeatedly presented by the Government as critical evidence in support of an extension of pre-charge detention beyond 28 days.

Pursuant to Operation Overt, 24 people were arrested on 10 August 2006 and 17 were subsequently charged. All of those charged with conspiracy to murder were charged within 21 days. Of the five suspects held for 27 to 28 days, three were released without charge or further suspicion. Two were charged with other terrorism offences.
It has been consistently asserted (in relation to the two charged at the end of the 28 day period) that the evidence only came to light at the end of that period (see Notes to Editors). Notwithstanding the sub-judice rule, the Home Secretary, other Government Ministers, the Head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Metropolitan Police have all given evidence or commented publicly on this point. This has been central to the argument that the police are ‘up against the buffers’ under the existing 28 day limit.

However, that information is inaccurate and misleading. The following corrections have now been confirmed by a lawyer working on the case:

The evidence relied upon to charge the two suspects, at the end of the 28 day period, was obtained by the police within four and 12 days respectively.

During the last 15 days of detention, interviewing of both suspects tailed off dramatically with average interview periods of only 10 and 16 minutes per day respectively.

None of the evidence relied upon was encrypted, required forensic analysis or contingent upon foreign intelligence.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“I am shocked, angry and more than a little disappointed to find Ministers have repeatedly sexed up the operational pressures on the existing 28 day detention limit. Just last week in front of millions of television viewers, a senior Cabinet Minister told me that the full 28 days had been required for the gathering of evidence in three cases. Now I learn that wasn’t true. I hope that the similarities with the infamous Iraq vote will not be lost on Labour MPs tomorrow.”

No information may be disclosed that might identify the individuals concerned. The information revealed here does not prejudice future proceedings as it only relates to the time that evidence became available, not the quality of evidence or guilt or innocence of those awaiting trial.

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

Notes to Editors

Statements made in relation to the 2 suspects charged at the end of the 28 day limit in Operation Overt

● Rt Hon David Miliband MP, BBC One, Question Time, 5th June 2008,

[In response to Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti] “Three years ago… You were saying that within 14 days we should just give the police more resources and they should get it done within 14 days. What’s happened since then? Three cases have got, not to the 14th day, but the 27th or 28th day. Those three are now being pursued through the courts for the most serious terrorist offences”.

● Ken Jones, Head of ACPO: ‘We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit.’ (Observer, 15 July 2007)

● Letter from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to David Davis, 6 November 2007: ‘In relation to the alleged airline plot … I am confident that those detained were charged or released as soon as all leads were exhausted or evidence crossed the charging threshold.’

● Counter-Terrorism Bill, 2nd Reading, 1 April 2008:

Mr. Paul Goodman: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. She will know that a major trial in connection with Operation Overt and the alleged aeroplane plot is to begin this week. Two people—one is a constituent of mine, and the other may be—were apparently charged on the 28th day, although it has been claimed that the police had sufficient evidence to charge them on the 21st day or before. Can the right hon. Lady definitively rule out the possibility of that occurrence?

Jacqui Smith: It is obviously difficult to talk about individual trials, especially ones that are due to start tomorrow, but the allegation to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been made on numerous occasions. I have sought assurances from the police that no such action has taken place, and they have frequently told me that none has. I have communicated that to some of the people who have made that allegation, but nevertheless it continues to be made—I know not for what purpose. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the occurrence to which he refers did not take place

● Evidence from Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and Bob Quick, AC Commissioner for Special Operations, to the Bill Committee, 22 April 2008:

Q 5 Mr. Grieve: May I turn briefly to time periods? One of the issues which has been raised during the course of discussion is that there have been occasions when the 28-day limit has come close to being reached. I do not know whether you can help us on this—I am deliberately trying to be a bit careful and am speaking in generalities because I am conscious that there are matters which may well be sub judice at the moment. One of the problems that I have had is that on the two examples that appeared to be given of going to 28 days, I was able to obtain information quite readily from others involved that, although it might have gone to 28 days, the evidence on which the decision to charge was made had in fact been available quite substantially earlier. Could you make any comment on that?

Bob Quick: I am aware of some of the detail of those cases. The decision to charge is a decision for the CPS, and it must be satisfied that a point in time has been reached and that the evidence to justify a prosecution is sufficient. It must be reasonably certain that a prosecution will succeed. It is largely a decision for the CPS about when that sufficiency of evidence has been reached. I know that in the cases to which you refer it was not satisfied until the very last moment, and the difference between charging and not charging was quite marginal.

20080610Human rights group Liberty today received startling information relating to Ministerial claims about the use of the existing pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects. This information undermines repeated claims that the authorities have been “up against the buffers” with the current 28 day detention period.Government offers “Cons”, not Concessions on Counter-Terror BillLiberty stressed that despite the Government amendments, counter-productive extension of pre-charge detention would still be triggered to deal with individual cases rather than genuine emergencies, making the promise of increased Parliamentary oversight meaningless.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “After all the dancing around invisible goalposts, these amendments give the game away. Yet again in the “War on Terror”, sweeping, unnecessary and counterproductive powers are dressed up with convoluted fig leaves and frightening adjectives. Forty-two days detention without charge has not been transformed into the emergency power promised by Ministers. The policy is as dangerous as ever.”

Flaws in the Government’s amendments to the Counter-Terror Bill include:

● Not Genuine Emergency Powers: The proposal has been dressed up with more language about “grave and exceptional terrorist threats,” but there is still no legal requirement for a terrorist emergency to exist and no requirement for the Home Secretary to show that 42 days detention is urgently needed to deal with any threat. Forty-two days could still become routine, triggered for operational convenience in individual cases.

● Parliamentary Oversight: The amendments promise more Parliamentary oversight but, however diligent our Parliamentarians, this could not provide anything more than a rubber-stamping exercise. The 42 day limit would still be triggered to keep a particular individual in custody. This would, therefore, involve Parliament debating individual cases which could prejudice future prosecutions.

● Judicial Oversight: The role of a judge in approving the use of 42 days in individual cases is of little comfort as, before a person is charged there is, by definition, no evidence for a court to test. No CPS application to detain a person for between 14 and 28 days has ever been refused. The courts would not be able to overturn these “reserve powers” if triggered in a disproportionate or irrational way or in a way which breaches human rights.

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 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, National Union of Journalists and the General Synod. Opposition parties and a large number of Labour back-bench MPs also oppose these proposals.

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

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. Download Liberty's short briefing, Understanding the pre-charge detention debate. Liberty is also producing briefing materials focusing on the amendments tabled today include a chart showing how the powers would operate in practice.

2. In a Liberty-commissioned You-Gov poll in March 2008, 54 percent believed that the Government’s motivation for extending pre-charge detention periods to 42 days was because it wants to look “tough on terror.” The YouGov online survey sample involved 1,926 adults and was undertaken from 25 – 27 March 2008.

3. Liberty proposes the following counter-terror proposals be pursued instead of extending pre-charge detention:

  • Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty calls for the Privy Council review’s findings on intercept evidence to be implemented before the Government considers extending pre-charge detention.

  • Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage. Current proposals in the Counter-terrorism Bill do not include judicial safeguards and do not allow police to question suspects about other offences after being charged. To read Liberty’s Counter-Terrorism Briefings for Second Reading follow the links on the right. 

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 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. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies has run in national newspapers and been displayed on billboards across London. See www.chargeorrelease.com

6. 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 as well as by the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights who stated that 42 days would be “would be way out of line with equivalent detention limits elsewhere in Europe”


20080603The Government’s Counter-Terror Bill amendments are “cons”, not concessions, and offer no safeguards for suspects who could be detained for up to six weeks and then released without charge.Free speech victory as charges against teen anti-Scientology protestor droppedLiberty’s Legal Director James Welch, who is advising the young man, said:

“At last an outbreak of common sense; but pretty worrying for free speech that the police even threatened this young man with prosecution. They may have ended their inquiries into this tawdry incident but rest assured that Liberty’s inquiry will continue.”

“Democracy is all about clashing ideas and the police should protect peaceful protest, not stifle it.”

The anti-Scientology protester, who as a minor cannot be named, was issued a summons by the City of London Police on 10 May for refusing to remove his sign reading: “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.”

The police said that his use of the word “cult” violated Section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986), which makes it an offence to display a sign which is threatening, insulting or abusive, within the hearing or sight of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by it. The boy was taking part in a group demonstration outside the Church of Scientology’s central London headquarters.

City of London Police today told the youth that they would not be pursuing the prosecution. Liberty is exploring the possibilities of action against the police amid concerns of police policy in this area.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
20080523Today the City of London Police have dropped the charges against a 16-year-old anti-Scientology protestor for using the word “cult” in a move the human rights group Liberty called a “free speech victory.”Human rights laws require police to protect witnesses in dangerThe Law Lords will hear that Hertfordshire and Sussex Police Forces failed to uphold the “right to life” because of their inaction when two witnesses under threat were ultimately murdered and disabled by their attackers.

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

'The authorities are continually complaining about criminal defendants arguing their human rights; strange that they should resist victims and witnesses’ enjoying protection as well'

The Law Lords will hear the cases of:

● Giles Van Colle, a 25-year-old optometrist from North London, who was shot dead in 2000 by a former employee, Daniel Brougham, after alerting police about the death threats he’d received from Brougham. After stealing optical equipment from several practices, including Van Colle’s, Brougham allegedly set fire to witnesses’ private property and made death threats by phone to Van Colle. Despite Van Colle’s repeatedly alerting the Hertfordshire Police Authority, the officer on the case failed to arrest Brougham or put Van Colle into witness protection before he was shot dead.

● Steven Smith was attacked with a claw-hammer by his former partner, Gareth Jeffrey, after reporting Jeffrey’s hundreds of violent threats to police on no less than five occasions. Texts and internet messages he received included “U are dead” and “I am looking to kill you and no compromises.” Smith suffered serious and lasting physical and psychological injuries.

The Law Lords appeal is being brought by the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police, as the Van Colle family have won their previous cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Chief Constable of Sussex Police appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision to reinstate Steven Smith's claim in negligence which had been struck out by the county court.

The intervention filed by Liberty, Inquest, Justice and Mind argues that as agents of the state, police authorities have a ‘positive obligation’ under Article 2 (the right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. The police must therefore take operational measures to protect the life of individuals from a risk posed by a third person.

Contact Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. On 19 May 2008 the Law Lords will hear the case of Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police v. Van Colle and another and Chief Constable of Sussex Police and Steven Smith. The judgment will be reserved.

2. Since the case of Hill v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police (1989) AC 53, in which the mother of one of the Yorkshire Ripper's victims attempted to sue the police for negligently failing to apprehend him, it has not generally been possible to bring a negligence action against the police for operational failures in a criminal investigation. The courts determined that it would not serve the interests of public policy to open the police to potential negligence claims since that might force them to act defensively and might divert resources from the work of policing. However, since the advent of the Human Rights Act 1998 and following a

Strasbourg case called Osman v UK (1999), claims based on similar facts can succeed on human rights grounds even when they cannot be brought in negligence. Osman concerned the police's failure to arrest a school teacher who had become disturbingly obsessed with a student who he eventually killed. Although Osman established that the police could owe a legally enforceable duty under Article 2 (right to life) where they 'knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual and failed to take steps reasonably open to them which might reasonably have been expected to avoid the risk', on the facts of Osman there was found to be no breach. The case of Smith presently before the House of Lords will examine the relationship between these two possible causes of action: Van Colle was brought purely on human rights grounds, but Smith was argued only in negligence since Mr. Smith's case was brought after the one year time limit under the Human Rights Act 1998 had expired.

3. Download a copy of Liberty’s briefing The Human Rights Act: Exploding the Myths.20080519In a case to be heard by the House of Lords today, Liberty will contend that police are obliged under human rights laws to protect witnesses who are known to be in danger.Independent inquiry announced into the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha MousaAt 3.30pm on Wednesday 14 May on College Green, Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti and Public Interest Lawyers solicitor Phil Shiner reacted to the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence of an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha Mousa, the 26 year old Iraqi who was tortured and killed in UK detention.

Liberty welcomes this announcement. To ensure lessons are learned and public confidence restored, the inquiry must satisfy the following conditions: 

- To be properly independent the inquiry must be led by a senior judge.

- The investigation must establish the specific facts, reveal the wider context in which this death occurred and provide accountability.

- Army policy and training on the treatment of detainees must be examined.

- There must be sufficient public scrutiny to ensure transparency.

- The victim’s family must be involved in the process.
 
 Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“We are delighted that the Defence Secretary and Chiefs of Staff have at last agreed to a public inquiry to learn long-term lessons from this terrible case. The British Military is completely right to seek to discover how torture techniques banned by the Heath Government in 1972 came to be used against vulnerable detainees in Iraq.”

“Phil Shiner is the lawyer who made this possible. His relentless work on behalf of the families of British soldiers and Iraqi civilians demonstrates the even-handedness of human rights.”

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors:

1. Baha Mousa, (digital post-mortem photos of Mr. Mousa are available) aged 26, was arrested during a raid by UK Armed forces at Haitham Hotel, detained and beaten to death by UK soldiers. He had been taken with eight others to the UK’s Temporary Detention Facility. The civilians were subjected to prolonged hooding with sandbags, prolonged stress positions such as sitting on an imaginary chair, prolonged sleep deprivation, ritualised abuse (through kickboxing games where soldiers apparently competed to kick the detainees further across the room) and prolonged beatings. On 13 March 2007 a military court martial at Camp Bulford found Corporal Payne of the Queen’s Lancashire regiment guilty of inhumane treatment but found the remaining officers and soldiers not guilty of various offences relating to the incident.

2. In June 2007, in the case of Al-Skeini v Secretary of State for Defence , the House of Lords held that the Human Rights Act provides protection to those held in British custody anywhere in the world (including Iraq). Under the HRA, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires not only that that lives are protected, but also that deaths in custody are effectively and independently investigated. On 27 March 2008 the Ministry of Defence admitted violating the human rights of Baha Mousa.


20080514Liberty response to the announcement of an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Iraqi civilian Baha Mousa.Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti tells MPs 54% public believe Government terror proposals meant to look "tough on terror"Liberty fears overzealous pre-charge detention limits will alienate Muslim communities and has proposed reasonable alternatives such as making intercept evidence admissible and allowing post-charge questioning.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The 42-day folly is undermining national unity and sapping public trust in anti-terror policy. We urge the Prime Minister to ignore the siren calls to

‘out-tough’ opponents and return to his original instincts for building cross-party and community consensus upon British fair-trial traditions.”

Flaws in the Government’s proposal to extend pre-charge detention include:

● on/off powers for the Home Secretary to extend pre-charge detention in individual cases to 42 days based on an “operational need” rather than a terror emergency

● weak and irresponsible Parliamentary oversight which would make MPs powerless for the first 30 days but then subsequently allow them to vote on individual cases, jeopardising future prosecutions

● courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days

MPs are likely to vote on the proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill in late May or early June.

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

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. The YouGov poll commissioned by Liberty asked the following question:

“The police currently have the power to detain and question people suspected of terrorism offences without charge for up to 28 days. This is called “pre-charge detention.” The Government would like to extend this period for up to 42 days without charge. Which of these do you think is the Government’s main motivation for this proposal?” 54 percent responded “because the Government wants to look “tough on terror.” The YouGov online survey sample involved 1,926 adults and was undertaken from 25th – 27th March 2008.

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

3. Liberty proposes the following counter-terror proposals be pursued instead of extending pre-charge detention:

  • Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty calls for the Privy Council review’s findings on intercept evidence to be implemented before the Government considers extending pre-charge detention.
  • Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage. Current proposals in the Counter-terrorism Bill do not include judicial safeguards and do not allow police to question suspects about other offences after being charged. (see Liberty’s Counter-Terrorism Briefings for Second Reading)


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.

● The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) enables a civil court to require an individual to hand over an encryption key (which unlocks data on seized computers). Anyone who fails to comply with such an order will be committing a serious criminal offence.

5. 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. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies has run in national newspapers and been displayed on billboards across London. (www.chargeorrelease.com)

6. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign has the support of the UK’s largest trade union UNITE, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, the three leading London mayoral candidates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, and American Civil Liberties Union Director Anthony Romero.

7. 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.

20080424Today Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti told MPs that 54 percent of the public believe the Government’s motivation for extending pre-charge detention periods is to look “tough on terror” based on YouGov poll findings.
Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti calls Government’s
counter-terror proposals an “international embarrassment”Proposals to extend pre-charge detention periods from 28 to 42 days for terror suspects will be counter-productive, according to Liberty, and will damage relations between minority communities and the police that are vital in dealing with the terror threat. Liberty has instead called for reasonable alternatives such as the use of post-charge questioning and allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The Government has abandoned the divisive rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’, but it must now abandon the counter-productive policies that went with it. Holding suspects for more than a month without charge would be an international embarrassment.”

Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3677 or 0797 3 831 128

Date - 11.00 – 12.00, Wednesday 9 April 2007
Location - The Foreign Press Association, 11 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AJ
20080407Liberty’s Director Shami Chakrabarti will tell the Foreign Press Association that controversial measures in the Government’s Counter-Terrorism bill will undermine Britain’s international reputation as a country which respects the rule of law.Liberty response to Counter-Terrorism Bill second reading“One minute the Home Secretary spoke about “values and rights” - but she shredded ancient liberties the next. Today’s debate will show the public that the Commons can still be a House of principle and cross-party consensus. All the spin about so-called safeguards has failed to soften up those who know the counter-productivity of detaining potentially innocent people for six weeks on suspicion alone.”

MPs are likely to vote on the proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill in late May or early June.

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

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. For a copy of Liberty’s two briefings on the Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill or Liberty’s short briefing, “Understanding the pre-charge detention debate” contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. Flaws in the Government’s proposal to extend pre-charge detention include:

● on/off powers for the Home Secretary to extend pre-charge detention in individual cases to 42 days based on an “operational need” rather than a terror emergency

● weak and irresponsible Parliamentary oversight which would make MPs powerless for the first 30 days but then subsequently allow them to vote on individual cases, jeopardising future prosecutions

● courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days


3. Liberty suggests the following counter-terror proposals be pursued instead of extending pre-charge detention:

  • Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty calls for the Privy Council review’s findings on intercept evidence to be implemented before the Government considers extending pre-charge detention.
  • Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage. Current proposals in the Counter-terrorism Bill do not include judicial safeguards and do not allow police to question suspects about other offences after being charged. See Liberty’s Counter-Terrorism Briefing for Second Reading here.
  • Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.
  • Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.
  • 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. YouGov poll results commissioned by Liberty found that only 13 percent of people agreed that the time limit for holding suspects without charge should be raised from 28 to 42 days while 54 percent of people believe the Government’s motivation for the proposals is to “look tough on terror.”

5. In an advert to run nationally today, Liberty will expose the growing opposition to extending pre-charge detention including the Director of Public Prosecutions, the General Synod, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, each of the London mayoral candidates and the UK’s largest trade union UNITE.

6. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign has the support of international luminaries including the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, and American Civil Liberties Union Director Anthony Romero. Find out more about the Real Consensus.

7. In December 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. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies has run in national newspapers and been displayed on billboards across London. See www.chargeorrelease.com for more information.

8. 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.

20080401Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti responds to the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill in the House of Commons.Liberty urges Government to drop controversial pre-charge detention plan on eve of Counter-Terrorism Bill second readingLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “This bill will receive second reading as a virtual formality, but the fight to defend British justice is just beginning. In the face of a whole range of measured alternatives, to hold someone for more than 1,000 hours without charge would be an international disgrace.”

MPs are likely to vote on the proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill in late May or early June.

YouGov poll results commissioned by Liberty this week found that only 13 percent of people agreed that the time limit for holding suspects without charge should be raised from 28 to 42 days while 54 percent of people believe the Government’s motivation for the proposals is to “look tough on terror.”

In an advert to run nationally tomorrow, Liberty will expose the growing opposition to extending pre-charge detention including the Director of Public Prosecutions, the General Synod, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, each of the London mayoral candidates and the UK’s largest trade union UNITE.

Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign has the support of international luminaries including the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, and American Civil Liberties Union Director Anthony Romero.

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

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. For a copy of Liberty’s two briefings on the Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill or Liberty’s short briefing, “Understanding the pre-charge detention debate” contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. Flaws in the Government’s proposal to extend pre-charge detention include:

● on/off powers for the Home Secretary to extend pre-charge detention in individual cases to 42 days based on an “operational need” rather than a terror emergency

● weak and irresponsible Parliamentary oversight which would make MPs powerless for the first 30 days but then subsequently allow them to vote on individual cases, jeopardising future prosecutions

● courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days

3. Liberty suggests the following counter-terror proposals be pursued instead of extending pre-charge detention:

  • Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty calls for the Privy Council review’s findings on intercept evidence to be implemented before the Government considers extending pre-charge detention.
  • Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage. Current proposals in the Counter-terrorism Bill do not include judicial safeguards and do not allow police to question suspects about other offences after being charged. (see Liberty’s Counter-Terrorism Briefings for Second Reading)
  • Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.
  • Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.
  • 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. In December 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. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies has run in national newspapers and been displayed on billboards across London. (www.chargeorrelease.com)

    5. 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.
20080331On the eve of the Counter-Terrorism Bill’s second reading, the human rights group Liberty has urged the Government to drop controversial plans to hold suspects for up to 42 days without charge. For nine months, Liberty has been organizing a cross-party political and public campaign against the divisive policy, which would create injustice and undermine community relations.Ministry of Defence admits human rights violation of Iraqi detainee Baha Mousa and othersIn the case of Mousa and eight other Iraqis, the Government acknowledged “substantive breaches” of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to life and prohibits torture.

The immediate implication of the MoD’s statement is that there must be a full independent inquiry into systemic problems whenever detainees suffer inhuman treatment, torture or death whilst detained in UK military establishments anywhere in the world.

While welcoming the MoD’s disclosure, Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

"A direct legal and moral consequence of today's admission that Mousa and others were unlawfully tortured and killed in British custody is that there must be a wholesale independent inquiry into what went wrong. British soldiers should never be sent into post-conflict situations without adequate training and advice. Baha Mousa is the Stephen Lawrence of Iraq.”

Liberty pointed out that the families of the Iraqi dead who brought their case to the Ministry of Defence were seeking justice for their loved ones and rejected arguments that the families are merely seeking financial compensation.

In the landmark Al-Skeini decision handed down in June 2007, the House of Lords Appellate Committee ruled that those held in UK detention facilities in Iraq are protected by the Human Rights Act. In the leading speech, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry dealt with the Government’s argument that bereaved families of those who die in UK detention should have to seek redress in the European Court of Human Rights:

“…the Secretary of State…says that sections 6 and 7 [of the Human Rights Act] are to be interpreted in such a way that, in these exceptional cases, a victim is left remediless in the British courts. Contrary to the central policy of the Act, the victim must resort to Strasbourg. My Lords, I am unable to accept that submission. It involves reading into sections 6 and 7 a qualification which the words do not contain and which runs counter to the central purpose of the Act.”


CONTACT: Liberty Press Office: 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Baha Mousa, [digital post mortem photos available] aged 26, was arrested during a raid by UK Armed forces at Haitham Hotel, detained and allegedly beaten to death by UK soldiers. He had been taken with eight others to the UK’s Temporary Detention Facility. The individuals were allegedly subjected to prolonged hooding with sandbags, prolonged stress positions such as sitting on an imaginary chair, prolonged sleep deprivation, ritualised abuse through kickboxing games where soldiers apparently competed to kick the detainees further across the room and prolonged beatings including kicking. On 13 March 2007 a military court martial at Camp Bulford found Corporal Payne of the Queen’s Lancashire regiment guilty of inhumane treatment and found not guilty the remaining officers and soldiers charged with various offences relating to the incident.

2. Lawyers Phil Shiner and others representing the Iraqi dead expressed concern that “conditioning” tactics such as hooding, handcuffing, sleep deprivation and using stress positions during interrogation, which were outlawed in 1972 by Edward Heath’s Government, had been used on Iraqi detainees held in UK custody.

3. In Al-Skeini v Secretary of State for Defence, the appellants argued that the six Iraqi civilians killed during the occupation of Iraq had their rights breached under Article 2 (the right to life) and/or Article 3 (the prohibition against torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Government is therefore obliged to hold an independent inquiry into their treatment. The High Court and the Court of Appeal found that the Human Rights Act applies in situations where an individual is detained by a British authority, in this case, the military. The House of Lords (by a margin of 4 to 1) upheld this view. Interveners in the case included Liberty, 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, the Law Society of England and Wales and the Redress Trust.
20080327The Ministry of Defence today admitted violating the human rights of Iraqi Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist who died in 2003 after sustaining 93 injuries while in UK detention in Iraq.Is Government’s ID card roll out first step toward compulsion?

The £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 through new laws including the UK Borders Act 2007.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director for Liberty said:

“Yet another re-launch of the ID scheme looks suspiciously like a new sales pitch for the same bad product. The message plays on fears of immigration, concerns about airport security and sentimentality about proud 18 year-olds’ buying their first beer! But foreigners already require passports and visas to come into the country and there is no reason whatsoever why workplace entry details need to be put on a central national database. ID cards remain disastrous for our purses, privacy and race relations. A slow soft sell won’t change this thoroughly bad idea.”

Liberty noted that the Government’s plan to require all non-EU nationals to carry ID cards later this year was actually introduced last year when the UK Borders Act 2007 became law.

Making ID cards mandatory for workers in high-risk areas such as airports is reasonable but Liberty expressed surprise that adequate security measures may not already be in place. Further, the definition of “high-risk” workers is subjective and could soon include other groups such as police officers, government officials and even teachers. Liberty believes there is no need to risk placing the details of these individuals on one national database.

Finally, encouraging students to carry ID cards appears to be targeting the public’s sentimentality about making life easier for young people, when in fact this could be targeting that generation to keep them on the national identity register database for life.

Liberty also 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.


We do 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.

20080306The Government’s announcement that ID cards will soon be compulsory for foreign nationals, “high-risk” workers and eventually students is an attempt to soften up the public before making ID cards compulsory for all British nationals, warned Liberty today.High Court to consider public inquiry into Harmondsworth disturbanceLiberty is acting on behalf of individual detainees who claim that during the Harmondsworth disturbance in November 2006 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 Legal Officer Alex Gask, who brought the legal challenge, said:

“These vulnerable men, detained for non-criminal reasons, were exposed to terrifying conditions and denied food and water during the disturbance because of systemic problems in the detention centre. Only a public inquiry can expose the truth and provide lessons to prevent this shameful episode from recurring.”

One detainee told how he was taken to the centre's medical clinic suffering from a bad back. 'They just abandoned me,' the man said. 'There was no doctor and, when I asked where the doctor was, the detention officers laughed at me ... One of them stepped on the hem of my trousers to make me fall over. He then started laughing and called me a "fucking negro".'

In January 2008, the Border and Immigration Agency’s race relations audit found that repeated patterns of alleged racist incidents at Harmondsworth detention centre were missed by the in-house investigation process and that regular taunting of detainees by some officers went unchallenged.

The disturbance in November 2006 allegedly began when some detainees challenged prison guards after they were not allowed to watch news coverage of a damning report on conditions in the centre by the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMIP). Four detainees were acquitted of conspiracy to commit violent disorder in February 2008.

Liberty is also challenging the Home Office and Kalyx Ltd (the contractor running the centre) over the appalling conditions of detention prior to the disturbance taking place. Evidence from the individuals about the conditions in Harmondsworth substantiate the HMIP report, including:
 
• an individual with HIV/AIDs being “outed” by prison officials and subsequently abused by other detainees
• an individual with diabetes being denied insulin treatment
• an individual with a visible skin disease bullied by prison officials
• arbitrary solitary confinement
• no effective complaints procedure
• guards using racist taunts and beating detainees without provocation
• detainees beaten by guards for such behaviour as requesting the faxes sent them by their lawyers.

The Home Office’s internal investigation into the disturbance led by Robert Whalley and published in July 2007 found that, “the underlying causes are still there and, without any changes, the same thing could happen again at either establishment."

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

Notes to Editors

1. The High Court of Justice will hold a permission hearing on Tuesday 4 March 2008 into the admissibility of a judicial review on behalf of three claimants who were detained at Harmondsworth detention centre in November 2006 against the Secretary of State for the Home Office and Kalyx Limited (formerly “UK Detention Services Ltd.”) Liberty argues that the Home Office is in violation of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by failing to conduct an independent inquiry into the disturbance. For a copy of the application contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. Liberty has compiled Harmondsworth detainees’ witness statements about the conditions in Harmondsworth both during and before the disturbance. The statements reveal that solitary confinement as a punishment for speaking out at Harmondsworth is common, according to Liberty’s witnesses. 'If we made a complaint we would be given a warning,' one man known as 'K' told Liberty. 'If we were given three warnings, we would be put in an isolated cell. We were scared of making complaints against officers because we expected to be treated badly if we did. We were treated like pigs and very unfairly, as if we were serious criminals.'

3. Anne Owers, Chief Inspector Prisons, visited Harmondsworth for an unannounced inspection on 17-21 July 2006. Her report on this inspection, published on 28 November 2006 was “undoubtedly the poorest report we have issued on an IRC”. This report is available online here.

20080303Liberty will tell the High Court tomorrow that vulnerable detainees were left in overcrowded, flooded cells without food or water while fires burned during a disturbance in Harmondsworth detention centre and call for a public inquiry into the incident.Liberty launches powerful cinema advert in London cinemas to alert public about draconian anti-terror plansAs part of Liberty’s Charge or Release campaign, the 30 second film uses stark images of an abandoned home to make the audience consider what it would be like to leave their homes, their families and their lives for six weeks and to be locked up without even being charged.

Renowned British actor Simon Callow, who provided the voiceover for the cinema advert, said:

“It seems to me that we must proceed with extraordinary caution in eroding the rights of the person, especially in regard to arrest without charge. The burden of proof must rest with the authorities: general suspicion is not enough. It is vitally important that the nation is aware of what is happening in its name. If artists have any degree of prominence, it may be that they can help to alert their fellow citizens to what is going on. I am proud to add my voice to Liberty’s campaign on this issue.”

Acclaimed British director Stephen Frears said of Liberty’s cinema advert:

"I am always on the side of anything which shows how complicated life can become for people, especially when placed under something as faceless and un-thought out as the Terror laws. If films can help, so much the better. Hats off!"

Liberty’s Campaigns Co-ordinator Sabina Frediani said:

“We hope this ad touches film-goers who care about upholding human rights - it is only when ordinary people stand up that injustices can be averted.”

The cinema ad was directed by emerging director Farrah Drabu of DNR Films.

Liberty has also been distributing a Charge or Release viral film about the anti-terror proposals featuring designer Vivienne Westwood and actor Riz Ahmed of Channel 4’s Britz.

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

Notes to Editors

1. Liberty’s Charge or Release cinema advert will be showing from Friday 29 February -Thursday 13 March at the following cinemas: Brixton Ritzy Screen 1; Clapham Picture House Screen 1; Greenwich Picture House

Screen 1; Chelsea Cinema Screen 1; Bloomsbury Renoir Screen 1 and from Friday 29 February - Thursday 6 March at the following cinemas: ICA Screen 1; London Baker Street Screen 2; Mayfair Curzon Screen 2; Soho

Curzon Screen 1; Soho Curzon Screen 3.

2. In November 2007 Liberty launched its Charge or Release campaign to halt 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. Liberty’s Charge or Release campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies have been published in national newspapers and displayed on billboards across London.

3. Liberty has called on the Government to implement less controversial anti-terror measures instead of extending pre-charge detention, including:

  • Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable 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. This will allow for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.
  • Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.
  • Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.
  • Emergency measures in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could 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.
20080229Today Liberty will launch a powerful cinema ad to raise awareness of the negative human impact of the Government’s controversial plans to hold terror suspects for 42 days without charge.European Court of Human Rights upholds absolute prohibition against tortureIn a test case closely watched by European Governments and human rights organisations, the Grand Chamber determined in Saadi v Italy that Italy could not return a Tunisian national deemed a security risk to his country of origin because he faced a real threat of torture.

Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti said:

“If the Grand Chamber had watered down the absolute prohibition against torture there would have been no putting this genie back in the bottle. It would have been a green light for extraordinary rendition and even the direct use of torture as an interrogation technique.

The refusal to compromise on torture distinguishes us from tyrants and terrorists alike. Today’s re-statement of the law will aid the battle for hearts and minds, ensuring that suspects are brought to justice and democratic values prevail.”

In contradiction to the argument of the United Kingdom as a third-party intervener with the support of the Italian Government, the Court determined that it was not possible to weigh the risk that a person might be subjected to ill-treatment against his dangerousness to the community if not sent back.

CONTACT: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 079 7383 1128


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The European Court of Human Rights delivered its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Saadi v Italy (application no. 37201/06) at 08:30am GMT on 28 February 2008.

2. Facts of the case in Saadi v Italy:

The case concerns an application brought by a Tunisian national, Nassim Saadi, who was born in 1974 and lives in Italy. The father of an eight-year-old child whose mother is an Italian national, Saadi had a valid residence permit for Italy which expired in October 2002. The application considered his possible deportation to Tunisia, where he claims to have been sentenced in absentia in 2005 to 20 years’ imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation and incitement to terrorism. After his application for political asylum in Italy was rejected in 2006, Saadi lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights alleging that enforcement of his deportation to Tunisia would expose him to the risk of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

3. The European Court of Human Rights decision upholds the finding in the 1996 Chahal v United Kingdom case that it is not possible to weigh the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons put forward for the expulsion in order to determine whether the responsibility of a State is engaged under Article 3, even where such treatment is inflicted by another State.

4. In the judgment, Judge Myjer said: “…States are not allowed to combat international terrorism at all costs. They must not resort to methods which undermine the very values they seek to protect…Upholding human rights in the fight against terrorism is first and foremost a matter of upholding our values, even with regard to those who may seek to destroy them…”
20080228Today the European Court of Human Rights upheld the absolute prohibition against torture requiring Governments to protect individuals who may face torture in their home country.European Court of Human Rights DNA case will promote national database debate, says LibertyLiberty noted that the court’s decision, expected in several months, will not force the UK Government to abandon its DNA retention policy but will promote debate on the scope and proportionality of the national DNA database.

“Liberty’s Policy Director Gareth Crossman said:

“This case should mark the beginning of a rational debate on whether the national DNA database permanently retaining samples from innocent people is justified. The court will not dictate our Government’s policy but will decide if these men, who’ve never been convicted, have been treated properly. Some argue that every man, woman and child should be on the database while others say that DNA should not be kept at all – we need sensible debate to find a fair and proportionate solution.”

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


Notes to Editors - Background on S and Marper v United Kingdom

1. S & Marper v United Kingdom, to be heard in the European Court of Human Rights on 27 February 2008, will establish if the automatic retention of DNA samples, profiles and fingerprints from those who are not convicted of any offence is a breach of the right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The government has repeatedly said it has no plans to create a universal database because it does not think the population is ready for the civil liberties implications of that. Liberty believes that the present arbitrary basis on which the database is built is both unsustainable and unjustifiable.

2. S & Marper concerns the legality of amendments to s64 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which enable the police to retain bodily samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints from anyone arrested for a recordable offence, whether or not they are charged, prosecuted or convicted. Virtually all offences (except the most trivial) are recordable. Current Government policy is to retain this information, including DNA on the National DNA Database (NDNAD), until the individual dies or reaches 100 years old. Samples, profiles and fingerprints can be destroyed on request in exceptional circumstances.



Facts

S was arrested in January 2001 when he was an 11 year old boy. He has no previous convictions, cautions or warnings. He was charged with the offence of attempted robbery and his fingerprints and samples were taken. Following a trial on 14.6.01 S was acquitted. He subsequently sought through his solicitors the destruction of his samples and fingerprints, but the police refused because of the legislative amendments referred to above (which came into force with retrospective effect on 11.5.01).


Marper was 38 when he was arrested in March 2001. He had no previous convictions. He was charged with harassment of his partner and his fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. By the time of a pre-trial review in May 2001 he had reconciled with his partner who no longer wished to press charges. The proceedings were discontinued. The police refused his request for the destruction of his samples and fingerprints.


European Court of Human Rights

S & Marper applied to the ECtHR to raise the following legal questions:

There is no justification for keeping the original bodily samples from which DNA profiles are generated. Whilst the profiles reveal a limited amount of information about an individual, the samples contain that person’s complete genetic makeup and to retain them requires a very strong justification which the government has not supplied. The government says the samples are needed for quality control purposes and in case it might need to upgrade the database in future. Liberty does not accept this. A future upgrade of the database is a hypothetical possibility which does not justify retention of the samples now. It is likely that the database will soon be so large that an upgrade of the all the profiles is in any event an unrealistic option.

There is insufficient justification for keeping DNA profiles from those not convicted of any offence. Although the profiles (a numerical representation of part of a person’s DNA) may be difficult to decipher to the untrained eye, there are a number of major privacy issues that arise from their retention on the database.

Firstly, the database is used for ‘familial searches’. If a DNA crime scene sample is loaded onto the database and does not ‘match’ any individual’s profile, the police will sometimes search for close matches in order to narrow down a list of possible suspects. They hope to identify a family member. They have been carrying out approximately 1.5 familial searches per week since 2004 (and some as early as 2002 at least, but they say they have no data prior to 2004). Each familial search can generate a long list of possibilities which is then narrowed down by using other intelligence such as geography, ethnicity and other ‘social assumptions’ such as the idea that people from criminal families are more likely to commit crime themselves. This is inherently discriminatory. Once narrowed down, the police will contact around 150 families for further investigations. The police may be disclosing to a person’s family that their details are on the database (and therefore that they have been arrested / possibly convicted) for the first time. The Information Commissioner has expressed concerns about familial searching which the police say they have addressed through a Best Practice Guide (written by Association of Chief Police Officers.)

Research is carried out on the database without the consent of those whose profiles are on it. This is only supposed to be for the ‘prevention or detection of crime’ but that is interpreted very broadly so that research into ethnicity for example would be acceptable provided it can be loosely associated with crime prevention or detection.

The NDNAD has an electronic link to the Police National Computer to enable the police to use it for intelligence purposes. The PNC is accessible from over 120,000 terminals in the UK, including non-police bodies. Previously, records held on the PNC were ‘weeded’ so that if you were acquitted or no proceedings were brought, the PNC record would be removed after around 40 days. Now, because of the link between the NDNAD and the PNC and because DNA profiles are kept until death/age 100, the PNC records are also kept. As a solution to the legal implications of this, the police propose to mask some of the information from ‘non-police users’ of the PNC but the system is not yet fully operational. Further, the Information Commissioner (ICO) considers that for the police to keep all this information even for themselves breaches the Data Protection Act 1998.

3. Britain’s DNA database is proportionately the largest in the world. Approximately 4.2 million people have their DNA permanently retained on the NDNAD. It is alleged to contain more than 100,000 DNA samples taken from children who have never been charged or convicted with any crime.

4. Black and ethnic minority males are over-represented on the National DNA database amongst BME males on the NDNAD. Fifty-seven percent of those added to the database by the Met Police who have not been convicted of any offence are of BME origin. Nearly 40% of black men, 13% of Asian men and 9% of white men are represented on the NDNAD.
20080227Two individuals whose DNA was taken by police and retained on the national DNA database although they were later found to be innocent are to have their case heard by the European Court of Human Rights.Liberty calls for full inquiry into UK role in “extraordinary rendition” flightsLiberty expressed grave concern that Foreign Secretary David Milliband has only now been informed by the US Government that two secret CIA flights transited the British territory of Diego Garcia in 2002, despite recent UK Government reassurances it has not been complicit in “torture flights.”

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“It is far too easy for our Government to blame the Americans for lack of information, particularly as Liberty has been asking the Foreign Office to investigate US torture flights for more than two years.”

“Torture is so counter-productive and immoral that international law makes mere complicity with it illegal. We need watertight guarantees from the Government that the UK will never look the other way again.”

Liberty first expressed concerns in November 2005 that the UK Government may be complicit in alleged torture practices if secret “torture flights,” carrying suspects to third countries where they may face torture had transited UK airports. In a dossier of correspondence between the human rights group and the Foreign Office, two successive Foreign Secretaries stressed that no such flights had received UK logistical support.

Liberty also asked the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2005 to conduct a police inquiry into allegations of UK complicity with extraordinary rendition flights, which was closed by ACPO in June 2007. The human rights group questioned whether ACPO had actually investigated the allegations.

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


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. On 8 June 2007, the Council of Europe released the findings of its 19-month investigation into extraordinary rendition flights which confirmed that European authorities were aware of illegal activity on their territory and that US military flights were given “overflight clearance.”

2. In February 2007 the European Parliament’s temporary commission on extraordinary rendition approved a report accusing EU states of complicity with CIA rendition flights.

3. On 6 September 2006 US President Bush acknowledged the existence of secret CIA prisons and said 14 key terrorist suspects have now been sent from the prisons to Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

4. On 26 June 2006 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) passed a resolution calling on all member states, including the UK, to pressure the US into ending rendition flights, closing secret prisons and changing their own laws and practices to guarantee the rights of persons captured from, detained in or transported through their states. Eighteen members of the UK Parliament from all the main political parties are on the PACE.

5. On 7 June 2006 the Council of Europe released preliminary findings concluding that CIA flights carrying terror suspects to places where they are likely to face torture have been given access to UK airspace and airports.

6. On 26 May 2006, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the Government was not doing enough to investigate whether UK airports are being used by secret CIA flights involved in the practice of extraordinary rendition.

7. On 30 November 2005, Liberty called on the Police Chief Constables of Bedfordshire, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, the Metropolitan Police, the Ministry of Defence Police, Suffolk, Sussex, Thames Valley, and West Midlands to conduct an investigation into whether the airports in their regions were being used to transport suspects to countries known to practice torture.

8. Liberty also alerted the-then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in November 2005 and later Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett of its fears that the UK would be in breach of domestic and international law by allowing CIA “extraordinary rendition” flights to land and re-fuel in Britain.

9. Liberty has called on the Government to support an amendment which would require the Secretary of State to force any suspicious aircraft in UK airspace to land and that would require the plane to be searched.

10. Investigative journalist Stephen Grey’s book, “Ghost Planes,” explores allegations of European complicity with extraordinary rendition flights.

11. The Guardian newspaper revealed on 6 December and 12 September 2005 that airports in Biggin Hill, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Brize Norton, Farnborough, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, RAF Mildenhall, Northolt, and Stansted have allowed CIA or CIA-chartered jets to land temporarily. These aircraft had flown into the UK approximately 210 times since 2001.

20080221Liberty today called for a full inquiry into UK complicity with US extraordinary rendition flights in which kidnapped suspects are taken to third countries where they may face torture.Liberty welcomes move to allow intercept evidence in courtFor several years the human rights group has called for phone tap evidence to be admissible in court as a tool for prosecutors instead of more divisive anti-terror measures such as extending pre-charge detention periods.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“This Privy Council Report may herald a new common sense in counter-terror policy. It opens the door for intelligence and legal experts to work together so that terror suspects may be fairly charged and brought to trial - not detained for long periods on mere suspicion. There should be no question of allowing 42 day pre-charge detention until this and other proportionate alternatives are pursued.”

“If they can use phone taps in court all over the world without compromising security, why shouldn’t we? A British public concerned about excessive surveillance might be comforted if judges authorized the warrants and the material put to more effective use.”

Liberty is concerned about the proliferation of surveillance in Britain. However, the judicial scrutiny required in court will bring more transparency and accountability to privacy protection. Allowing phone-tap evidence is logical and preferable to anti-terror measures like excessive pre-charge detention limits which give a propaganda victory to extremists.

In addition to its proposal to remove the bar on the use of intercept evidence in terror cases, Liberty has also suggested the following counter-terror proposals instead of pre-charge detention:

- Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage.

- Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

- Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

- 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.

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

Notes to Editors

1. For a copy of Liberty’s evidence to the Chilcot Privy Council Review in 2007 contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. Presently, the products of “bugs” or listening devices are admissible in court but telephone material is not. For more details on surveillance and privacy matters, see Liberty’s 150-page report, Overlooked: Surveillance and Personal Privacy in Britain.

3. In December 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. Liberty’s Charge or Release campaign adverts will run in national newspapers and be displayed on billboards across London. Find out more at www.chargeorrelease.com

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. The 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. Download a copy of the full report.

20080206Liberty today welcomed the Privy Council Report’s findings that a new framework can be introduced to allow the use of intercept evidence in criminal trials and called for 42 day detention proposal to be scrapped.MP surveillance case exposes gaps in privacy protection lawsDetails about the incidents revealed by Justice Minister Jack Straw today indicate that:

● intrusive surveillance was used and would have been authorized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

● the police (rather than the Home Office) as general practice seek authorizations in prisons

● the Wilson Doctrine applies to telephone taps and not bugging devices due to the complicated, piecemeal nature of privacy laws

● the strength of safeguards to protect lawyer/client consultations remains questionable

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

"Mr Straw’s rapid reaction is welcome as is Sir Christopher’s decision to report within two weeks. Whatever actually happens in this case – it's high time for simpler and stronger surveillance laws with warrants issued by judges, not policeman nor politicians."

“The Wilson doctrine has given false comfort to generations of MPs, as it seems that it applies only to telephone communications while they had understandably assumed it protected all confidential communications.”

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

1. Download a copy of Liberty’s Targeted Surveillance Guide




20080204Liberty today welcomed the inquiry by Sir Christopher Rose into the alleged surveillance of Sadiq Khan MP during a visit to Woodhill prison two years ago.Legislators urged to take anti-terror lessons from Northern IrelandLegislators will be urged to learn from the experience of counter-productive criminal justice measures introduced during the Northern Ireland conflict in a hard-hitting report to be launched by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) in Westminster on Thursday 31 January. The human rights group Liberty will join the CAJ to urge law-makers not to repeat the mistake of introducing draconian and divisive measures to deal with the terror threat.

CAJ’s spokesperson, Aideen Gilmore said:

“We are taking the lessons from Northern Ireland to the heart of government to say that the current security-driven response to political violence is misguided and policy should instead be formulated to build on the lessons learnt in peace-building in Northern Ireland.”

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“This painful period has taught us that the Government can be truly tough on terrorism by leading a democratic consensus based upon rights, freedoms and the rule of law. When will the Government learn that lengthy pre-charge detention is the best ammunition for terror recruiters and stop re-heating bad policy?”

Key findings include:

° the rule of law and human rights standards must be upheld during times of crisis;

° police forces must receive proper training and accountability measures introduced;

° criminalising entire communities is counter-productive and discriminatory; and

° long or indeterminate pre-trial detention is a major criminal justice setback

The CAJ report on Northern Ireland’s experience, called "Lessons From Northern Ireland", on one of the most protracted and serious violent conflicts in the world, was undertaken as part of a global study entitled “Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights” under the auspices of Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). An ICJ representative, Gerald Staberock, will speak about how the UK compares to other parts of the world, and what are the lessons of the so-called “war on terror”.

Contact: Committee on the Administration of Justice on 02890 961122 and Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. The report is authored by the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) an independent cross community group working on human rights in Northern Ireland since 1981

www.caj.org.uk

2. Legislators who have referred to the Northern Ireland conflict in relation to the Government’s proposals to extend pre-charge detention limits for terror suspects include: Michael Meacher MP, Labour, July 2007: “Internment has never worked, in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, and since the flow of intelligence from the Muslim community to the police is far and away the most most effective means of countering terrorist activity, to shut it down (which detaining people for nearly 2 months without trial is very likely to do in its impact on Muslim opinion) is utterly counter-productive.”
Read the post on Michael Meacher MP's blog.

3. Alistair Carmichael MP, Lib Dem, back in 2005: "This is no flight of fancy because we have been here before - detention without charge is not a new concept. We tried it in Northern Ireland - we know what the consequences of that were." Read the article.  

4. Ben Wallace MP, Conservative and former soldier in Northern Ireland, speaking in 2005:

“I speak as someone who served in Northern Ireland, and was involved in the implementation of a number of counter-terrorism measures. I often had to stand on the streets of Northern Ireland while members of the Labour party voted against important measures.
 
Many members of the security forces risked their lives to work within the law, and we did so because we believed that gathering evidence before arrest was the best way to prevent and counter terrorism.
 
Royal Ulster Constabulary officers and many other people in Northern Ireland learned that there are no shortcuts to counter-terrorism. One cannot wipe the slate clean or try to outmanoeuvre the terrorists in minutes or days, as we have seen in four days of debate on the Floor of the House. Have we forgotten the lessons that we learned in Malaya, Northern Ireland and even in Basra? Terrorism is defeated by winning hearts and minds, when the communities themselves stop people committing such acts.

If the Government think that they will bring communities closer to the forces of law and order by incarcerating people for 90 days without trial they are badly mistaken. It is from communities that we get informers and tip-offs, and it is from the communities that we recruit members of the police forces and the security services that, in the end, defeat terrorism...

The Government have argued that there is a difference between the terrorists in Northern Ireland and those whom we face now. Yes, of course, what the terrorists are trying to achieve by killing innocent people and how they are trying to achieve it is different, but the cause is not. The way to solve terrorism is no different. It is only when communities engage with the forces of law and order that we start to head such people off.

Whatever has caused the current problems in France, how much will the Algerian community, the north African and Muslim communities help the forces of law and order in the next year or two? The answer is very little. We must be careful how we proceed if we take individuals out of communities, which will be predominantly Islamic communities, some in my constituency, and hold them without charge for 90 days.” 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-11-09b.325.2
20080130A comprehensive report published on 31 January offers legislators anti-terror insights from Northern Ireland conflict.Government introduces controversial anti-terror measuresThe human rights group Liberty opposes any extension of pre-charge detention and has called for reasonable alternatives such as the use of post-charge questioning and allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions. Liberty believes that excessive pre-charge detention periods will damage relations between minority communities and the police, undermining trust and the intelligence needed to deal with the terror threat.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The Government is right to abandon the divisive rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’, but it must now abandon the counter-productive policies that went with it. Despite Ministerial promises of exceptional circumstances and so-called safeguards, the reality of this bill is an on-off button for six weeks detention without charge.”

Flaws in the Government’s proposal to extend pre-charge detention limits include:

● Although described as a “reserve power”, the Home Secretary can trigger the power to detain people for up to 42 days at any time to deal with individual cases. There is no need for a public emergency - the only requirement is a report from the DPP and chief police officer stating that longer detention would assist their investigations.

● The Home Secretary only has to inform Parliament after triggering the 42 day limit. Parliamentary approval is not needed, meaning there would be no vote at all except to renew the powers after 30 days.

● The decision to trigger the 42 day limit cannot be challenged in Court and the power cannot be struck down.

Liberty has proposed alternatives to extending pre-charge detention periods such as allowing post-charge questioning (with judicial safeguards) once a person has been charged with a terror offence. Liberty welcomes the Government’s introduction of new post-charge questioning measures in the anti-terror bill but believes they do not give enough powers to police and prosecutors and omit vital safeguards. Under the Government’s plan, police may question suspects post-charge only about issues to do with the charge that has already been brought, rather than questions relating to possible new charges. With the proper judicial and other safeguards against abuse, police and prosecutors could have far greater powers, according to Liberty.

Liberty also maintains that existing 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 temporarily to extend pre-charge detention subject to Parliamentary and judicial oversight.

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

Notes to Editors

1. Numerous legal, parliamentary, and media pundits have said recently that the Government has not made the case for extending pre-charge detention limits beyond 28 days. These include the Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken McDonald, the Head of Counter-Terrorism for the Crown Prosecution Service Sue Hemming, the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, and the editorial leaders of national broadsheet and tabloid newspapers including the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror and the Times. To find out more visit The Real Consensus and read the complete list.

2. In December 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. Visit www.chargeorrelease.com to watch Liberty’s campaign video featuring designer Vivienne Westwood and actor Riz Ahmed.

3. 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. The 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.
20080124Today the Government will push ahead with controversial plans to extend pre-charge detention periods from 28 to 42 days for terror suspects despite widespread concerns that the measures would be counter-productive.High Court grants hearing to decide if exclusion of Sikh schoolgirl for wearing religious bangle is illegalThe human rights group Liberty will argue that the school has breached race relations and human rights laws, as well as a 25-year-old Law Lords’ decision which allows Sikh children to wear items representing their faith, including turbans, to school.

Anna Fairclough, Liberty’s Legal Officer representing the Singhs, said:
“Nothing less than our traditions of religious freedom and racial tolerance are on trial in this case. Individuals from any religion who wish to modestly express their faith should not be denied a proper education as Ms Singh has.”

The High Court refused to allow Singh to attend school while the case is ongoing, but Liberty will ask the court to reconsider at an interim hearing. Singh was forced to have isolated school lessons for two months and has been excluded from the school in South Wales since 5 November 2007.

Singh, of mixed Welsh/Punjabi origin, has been brought up in the Sikh faith and is the only Sikh at the Aberdare Girl’s 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 religious bangle, she was subsequently isolated throughout the day, including meals, for approximately two months.

UNITED SIKHS, an international advocacy charity who are supporting Ms Singh, will apply to file a third party intervention. Liberty will argue that the Aberdare Girls School is violating the Race Relations Act 1976, the Equality Act 2006 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

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

Notes to Editors

1. The Welsh Assembly published uniform guidelines for Welsh schools on 18 January 2008, after facing pressure from protestors earlier that week who called for the guidelines to be introduced.

2. 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), Article 9 (freedom of religion), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 2 of the First Protocol which protects the right not to be denied an education.

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 are supporting the Singh family.

5. In 2006, Liberty supported the religious freedom cases of Aisah Azmi, who was suspended by the Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire for wearing the full Muslim veil, or niqab, while working as a teaching assistant and 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.

20080123The High Court today has decided to hear the case of 14-year-old Sarika Singh, excluded from Aberdare Girl’s School in South Wales for wearing a Sikh religious bangle.High Court to determine if Sikh schoolgirl’s exclusion is illegalThe High Court will consider the case during the week of 14 January. UNITED SIKHS, an international advocacy charity, will also apply to file a third party intervention.

Singh was forced to have isolated school lessons for two months and has been excluded from the school in South Wales since 5 November 2007. Liberty will argue that the Aberdare Girl’s School has breached race relations and human rights laws, as well as a 25-year-old Law Lords’ decision which allows Sikh children to wear items representing their faith, including turbans, to school.

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

“Sarika Singh has suffered humiliating isolation and is being denied a proper education simply because she wears the Kara, a small bangle worn by virtually all Sikhs both in and out of school and work. It is astonishing that the school continues to exclude her despite almost universal condemnation and 25-year-old House of Lords precedent.”

Singh, of mixed Welsh/Punjabi origin, has been brought up in the Sikh faith and is the only Sikh at the Aberdare Girl’s School. The school’s uniform policy prohibits the wearing of any jewelry other than a wrist watch and plain ear studs. When the school noticed that Singh was wearing the religious bangle, she was subsequently isolated throughout the day, including meals, for approximately two months.

Liberty will argue that the Aberdare Girls School is violating the Race Relations Act 1976, the Equality Act 2006 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Liberty requests that Singh be allowed to attend normal lessons at the school while wearing the Kara and that the school amends its uniform policy to comply with the Race Relations Act.

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 18 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), Article 9 (freedom of religion), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 2 of the First Protocol which protects the right not to be denied an education.

2. The Governing Body of the Aberdare School must lodge its defence in the High Court by 11 January 2008.

3. The Kara (a small plain single bangle) is widely accepted as a central element or requirement of the Sikh 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 are supporting the Singh family.

5. In October 2006, Liberty supported the religious freedom cases of Aisah Azmi, who was suspended by the Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire for wearing the full Muslim veil, or niqab, while working as a teaching assistant and 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.

20080104With the backing of UNITED SIKHS, the human rights group Liberty has filed a legal challenge in the High Court on behalf of 14-year-old Sarika Singh, excluded from her school for wearing a Sikh religious bangle.MPs widely opposed to extending pre-charge detention in terror cases

Of the Labour MPs polled about extending pre-charge detention periods beyond 28 days, 51 percent said they would only support a temporary extension during a national emergency and 44 percent thought extension would damage the UK’s international reputation on civil liberties. Forty-eight percent of Labour MPs agreed that there has been too much legislation in response to the threat of a terror attack.  If carried through to a Parliamentary vote, these figures indicate that the Government’s scheme to extend pre-charge detention would be defeated by backbench Labour MPs.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “This poll reveals the true consensus on anti-terror laws – the shared belief that extending punishment without trial beyond what is already the longest period in the Western world will neither lessen the threat nor improve community relations.”

Liberty’s ComRes poll revealed that two-thirds (65 percent) of MPs think there has already been too much legislation in this area.  The poll showed widespread opposition towards amending the Terrorism Act to extend pre-charge detention (with only 36 percent of all MPs supporting it) and massive support for Liberty's alternative proposals, such as removing the bar on intercept evidence (with 89 percent of all MPs backing this option) and allowing post-charge questioning with judicial oversight (92 percent of all MPs). Further, only 36 percent of MPs believe that extending the detention limit beyond 28 days will help tackle the threat of terrorism while 55 percent believe that doing so will actually damage police and community relations.

Liberty believes that flaws in the Government’s proposals to extend pre-charge detention include

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

● weak Parliamentary oversight as MPs are not allowed to vote when powers are activated

● inadequate judicial oversight, as the courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention.

Liberty is disappointed by Government proposals to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days for terror suspects and points out that a growing consensus believes that no case has been made for these new powers. Liberty has instead suggested the following counter-terror proposals be pursued:

• Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty has given evidence to the Government’s Privy Council review on intercept evidence.

• Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial authorisation and oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage.

• Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

• Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

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

Notes to Editors

1. The ComRes omnibus poll was conducted in November 2007 and 285 MPs were questioned.  The data are weighted to reflect the exact composition of the House of Commons in terms of party and region.To view the findings in full, contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. On 11 December 2007 the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on proposed anti-terror powers. Liberty submitted supplementary evidence to the Committee: “Terrorism pre-charge detention – the Government’s Proposals and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.” In its evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, Liberty made clear that any legislation permitting a temporary extension of pre-charge detention limits in exceptional circumstances must build on, rather than weaken, the vital safeguards contained in existing legislation. For a copy of the evidence contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

 3. On 6 December 2007 the Home Secretary announced new anti-terror proposals to be included in legislation to be introduced in early 2008.

4. Liberty ’s “The Real Consensus” list of media, politicians and opinion-makers who oppose the extension of pre-charge detention levels is available here.

5. In December 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.   Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies will run in national newspapers and be displayed on billboards across London. For more information visit www.chargeorrelease.com

 6. 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 . The 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. Some countries have very similar criminal justice systems to the UK , making comparisons straightforward. No two legal systems are exactly the same but difficulties in drawing comparisons can be over-played. None of these permits pre-charge detention for anything as long as 28 days. In countries that do not have the exact concept of “pre-charge detention”, like France and Germany, lawyers who contributed to Liberty’s International Charge or Release study qualified in those jurisdictions have identified the closest equivalent.

20080103Poll figures released today reveal widespread Parliamentary opposition to the Government’s anti-terror proposal to extend pre-charge detention, with nearly half of Labour MPs raising serious concerns.Home Affairs Select Committee opposes pre-charge detention beyond 28 days in terror casesLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“As Parliament rises for Christmas, the consensus against the Government’s anti-terror policy is snowballing. This morning the former Lord Chancellor and this evening the influential Home Affairs Committee have unequivocally opposed extending pre-charge detention beyond 28 days.”

In its evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, Liberty made clear that any legislation permitting a temporary extension of pre-charge detention limits in exceptional circumstances must build on, rather than weaken, the vital safeguards contained in existing legislation [the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.]

Flaws in the Government’s proposals to extend pre-charge detention include:

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

● weak Parliamentary oversight as MPs are not allowed to vote when powers are activated.

● inadequate judicial oversight, as the courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention.


Liberty has expressed disappointment at Government proposals to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days for terror suspects and points out that a growing consensus believes that no case has been made for these new powers. Liberty has instead suggested the following counter-terror proposals be pursued:

• Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty has given evidence to the Government’s Privy Council review on intercept evidence.

• Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage.

• Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

• Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

• 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 offer far less protection than those offered in the Civil Contingencies Act.


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


Notes to Editors

1. On 11 December 2007 the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on proposed anti-terror powers. Liberty submitted supplementary evidence to the Committee: “Terrorism pre-charge detention – the Government’s Proposals and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.” For a copy of the evidence contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. On 6 December 2007 the Home Secretary announced new anti-terror proposals to be included in new legislation to be introduced in early 2008.

3. Liberty’s “The Real Consensus” list of media, politicians and opinion-makers who oppose the extension of pre-charge detention levels is available on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk

4. In December 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. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies will run in national newspapers and be displayed on billboards across London. See www.chargeorrelease.com for more information.

5. 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. The 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. Some countries have very similar criminal justice systems to the UK, making comparisons straightforward. No two legal systems are exactly the same but difficulties in drawing comparisons can be over-played. None of these permits pre-charge detention for anything as long as 28 days. In countries that do not have the exact concept of “pre-charge detention”, like France and Germany, lawyers who contributed to Liberty’s International Charge or Release study qualified in those jurisdictions have identified the closest equivalent.
20071213Today the Home Affairs Select Committee announced its unequivocal opposition to extending pre-charge detention, noting that neither the Government nor police had made the case to go beyond the current 28-day limit. The Committee also backed alternatives suggested by Liberty, including the use of intercept evidence in terror trials and allowing post-charge questioning of terror suspects.Law Lords find UK Government must share human rights liability in Iraq with United NationsThe Law Lords dismissed the UK Government's argument that UK forces in post-conflict Iraq were actually under UN control, finding that detainees in Iraq may rely on UK human rights laws.

The right not to be arbitrarily detained was found to have been modified by UN Security Council Resolution 1546, which permits internment of suspects in Iraq, but only to the extent strictly required by the resolution. Thus safeguards must be in place to ensure that detention only occurs when necessary for reasons of security.

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

"Although the Law Lords have found that the right to liberty of Mr Al-Jedda is limited, the overall effect of this ruling is that the UK cannot pass the buck to the UN when faced with accusations of human rights abuses in post-conflict Iraq."

In determining whether Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty) is qualified by the legal regime established by UNSCR 1546, Lord Carswell said:

"I would emphasise, however, that that power [to intern] has to be exercised in such a way as to minimise the infringements of the detainee's rights under article 5(1) of the Convention, in particular by adopting and operating to the fullest practicable extent safeguards..." such as "the regular review of the continuing need to detain each person and a system whereby that need and the underlying evidence can be checked and challenged by representatives on behalf of the detained persons".

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

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Judgment in Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al Jedda v the Secretary of State for Defence has been handed down by the Law Lords at 9:45 today. For a copy of the intervention submitted by Liberty and Justice contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. UNSCR 1546 was issued after the occupation of Iraq formally ended and applied to troops from all countries taking part in the UN authorised multi-national force in Iraq, including the UK.

3. This case follows the July 2007 House of Lords decision in Al-Skeini v Secretary of State for Defence, in which the Law Lords found that the protections within the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights apply to anyone held in British custody, even overseas.

4. UNSCR 1546 was based in part on a letter submitted by the-then United States Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2004 which referred to the use of internment.

5. Facts of the case: Mr Al-Jedda was born in Iraq in May 1957 and is now 48 years old. He was a distinguished basket-ball player, and as a young adult he spent time in the United Arab Emirates ("the UAE") and then in Pakistan, before he moved to this country with his first wife in 1992. He made a claim for asylum and was granted indefinite leave to remain. He was subsequently granted British nationality. All four of his children by his first wife are British citizens. Prior to September 2004 the claimant was living in London, drawing incapacity benefit and income support. He says that he decided to travel to Iraq in September 2004 in order to try to obtain British visas for his family and to introduce his British children to their Iraqi relatives.

6. Mr Al Jedda's evidence is to the effect that on 10th October 2004, while he was visiting his sister, US troops accompanied by Iraqi national guards surrounded and entered his parents' house, searching for him. They then moved on to his sister's house, where they found him and arrested him. The evidence on behalf of the Secretary of State is that the arrest was affected by UK troops as part of an operation undertaken by UK troops. The reason for his arrest and detention was that he was suspected of membership of a terrorist group. He maintains that he has not been involved in any terrorist activities. Mr Al-Jedda seeks to secure both his release from detention in Iraq and his return to this country. He says that he will undertake to co-operate with a voluntary return, notwithstanding that he recognises that if he does return he may be liable to prosecution under the Terrorism Act 2000 or to stringent measures of control under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
20071212The UK cannot pass responsibility to the United Nations for its human rights abuses in Iraq following a Law Lords ruling today.Home Secretary’s anti-terror plans abandon vital safeguardsLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“A new discursive tone cannot mask an old divisive message. The only ‘consensus’ is of opposition to extending the longest pre-charge detention in the Western world. The Home Secretary wants an “on-off button” to intern suspects - not in times of emergency but at moments of convenience. She strains to dismiss rational alternatives. So-called parliamentary and judicial safeguards are close to laughable.”

The Home Secretary today gave evidence on Government anti-terror proposals before the Home Affairs Select Committee, which will publish its findings within days.

Flaws in the anticipated Government proposal to extend pre-charge detention include:

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

● weak Parliamentary oversight as MPs are not allowed to vote when powers are activated.

● inadequate judicial oversight, as the courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention.

Liberty has expressed disappointment at Government proposals to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days for terror suspects and points out that a growing consensus believes that no case has been made for these new powers. Liberty has instead suggested the following counter-terror proposals be pursued:

• Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty has given evidence to the Government’s Privy Council review on intercept evidence.

• Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage.

• Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

• Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

• 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 offer far less protection than those offered in the Civil Contingencies Act.

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

Notes to Editors

1. On 6 December 2007 the Home Secretary announced new anti-terror proposals which will be included in new legislation to be introduced in early 2008.

2. In December 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. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies will run in national newspapers and be displayed on billboards across London. See www.chargeorrelease.com for more information.

2. 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. The 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.

3. Some countries have very similar criminal justice systems to the UK, making comparisons straightforward. No two legal systems are exactly the same but difficulties in drawing comparisons can be over-played. None of these permits pre-charge detention for anything as long as 28 days. In countries that do not have the exact concept of “pre-charge detention”, like France and Germany, lawyers who contributed to Liberty’s International Charge or Release study qualified in those jurisdictions have identified the closest equivalent.
20071211Today Liberty reaffirmed its opposition to the Home Secretary’s proposals to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days in terror cases. The human rights group dismissed the Government’s scheme which contains superficial Parliamentary and judicial oversight. Crucially, extension can be introduced without a genuine emergency.Government ignores consensus on pre-charge detentionLiberty expressed disappointment at the Government’s u-turn on anti-terror consensus-building.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The Home Secretary’s abrupt announcement wastes so much goodwill and months of so-called consensus building on national security. There is no evidence to extend beyond what is already the longest period in the Western world. The Government risks alienating backbenchers, opposition parties and Liberty with this political gesture.”

Flaws in the anticipated Government proposal to extend pre-charge detention include:

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

● weak Parliamentary oversight as MPs are not allowed to vote when powers are activated.

● inadequate judicial oversight, as the courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention.


Liberty has expressed grave dismay at Government proposals to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days for terror suspects despite admissions that the case for these new powers has not been made. Liberty has instead suggested the following counter-terror proposals be pursued:

• Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty has given evidence to the Government’s proposed Privy Council review on intercept evidence.

• Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be supplemented with further offences at a later stage.

• Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

• Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

• 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.

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

Notes to Editors

1. In December 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. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies will run in national newspapers and be displayed on billboards across London. Visit www.chargeorrelease.com for more information. 

2. 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. The 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.

3. No two legal systems are exactly the same and comparisons are not always simple but difficulties in drawing comparisons can be over-played. Some countries have very similar criminal justice systems to the UK, making comparisons relatively straightforward. None of these permits pre-charge detention for anything as long as 28 days. 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.
20071206The Government will today ignore the growing consensus against extending pre-charge detention for terror suspects when it announces new anti-terror powers which lack the safeguards of existing laws.Archaic blasphemy laws weakened by Jerry Springer rulingIn a third-party intervention, human rights group Liberty said that free speech rights must protect sacred, profane and secular language alike.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Anna Fairclough said:

“Today’s ruling is a blow to bigotry which rightly raises the bar significantly for blasphemy prosecutions. The obvious next step is to repeal this out-dated offence.”

Stephen Green of Christian Voice sought the prosecution against Jonathan Thoday, the producer of the award-winning musical and Mark Thompson, Director-General of the BBC, which broadcast the show in January 2005. Green was initially denied permission to prosecute by the City of Westminster magistrates’ court. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by the High Court today.

In the judgment, Lord Justice Hughes said that the “…crime of blasphemous libel is material relating to the Christian religion, or its figures or formularies, so scurrilous and offensive in manner that it undermines society generally, by endangering the peace, depraving public morality, shaking the fabric of society or tending to be a cause of civil strife…”

Liberty argued that the offence of blasphemy violates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects free speech and that blasphemy should be decriminalised in English law because of its lack of legal certainty (as has been held by the Irish Supreme Court in Corway v Independent Newspapers [2000]).

Blasphemous libel claims can be brought against the publication of any matter that insults, offends, or vilifies the Deity or Christ or the Christian religion. Whether the publication intends to be blasphemous is irrelevant in blasphemous libel claims.

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

Notes to Editors

1. The High Court heard the application of Stephen Green and the City of Westminster Magistrates Court and John Murray Thoday and Mark Thompson and Liberty on 20 November 2007. For a copy of Liberty’s intervention contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

2. The Council of Europe recommended in June 2007 that blasphemy should be decriminalised, as did the Law Commission in a report in 1985.

3. The last successful prosecution using blasphemy law was brought by Mary Whitehouse in 1977 against Gay News for publishing a poem, The Love that Dares to Speak its Name, about a Roman soldier’s love for Christ.

4. The award-winning Jerry Springer – the Opera, was performed at theatres around Britain from October 2003 to July 2006.
20071205Out-dated blasphemous libel laws were critically weakened today when a High Court judge found the laws could only apply if the material is “so…offensive in manner that it undermines society...” A private prosecution brought by the group Christian Voice against the producer and broadcaster of Jerry Springer – the Opera was thrown out in the first test of the blasphemy laws in nearly 30 years.Liberty responds to Home Affairs Select Committee draft report on anti-terror powersLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“We are delighted that these MPs have joined the growing consensus against extending the pre-charge detention period, which is already the longest of any comparable democracy. As for whispers of a so-called compromise, today’s vague mutterings suggest no improvement on existing law.”

On 12 November, Liberty released a comprehensive study of terrorist pre-charge detention powers in 15 countries, including the United States, Spain, Russia, France and Turkey. The 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.

Liberty has expressed grave concern at Government proposals to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days for terror suspects despite admissions that the case for these new powers has yet to be made. Liberty has instead suggested the following counter-terror proposals be considered:

• Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty has given evidence to the Government’s proposed Privy Council review on intercept evidence.

• Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.

• Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

• Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

• Emergency measures in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could 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.

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

Notes to Editors

1. In December 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. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies will run in national newspapers and be displayed on billboards across London.
www.chargeorrelease.com

2. No two legal systems are exactly the same and comparisons are not always simple but difficulties in drawing comparisons can be over-played. Some countries have very similar criminal justice systems to the UK, making comparisons relatively straightforward. None of these permits pre-charge detention for anything as long as 28 days. 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.
20071205Response to reports of a leaked Home Affairs Select Committee draft report on anti-terror powers.Liberty and Justice host Human Rights AwardsDirector of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti said:

"2007 has seen extensive attacks upon the Human Rights Act, further erosion of personal privacy and the renewal of the campaign to extend pre-charge detention. Now more than ever we should celebrate those whose dedication to the protection of human rights gives heart to everyone who cares about our British values of fairness and justice."

The awards will be judged by Francesca Klug OBE (LSE centre for the study of Human Rights); Guy Beringer QC (Allen & Overy LLP), Roger Smith (Justice); Shami Chakrabarti (Liberty).

What: Human Rights Awards 2007
When: 6.15 – 10.00 10th December 2007
Where: Old Theatre, Old Building, LSE, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 0207 378 3677 or 0797 383 1128

NOTES TO EDITORS

Shortlisted for the 2007 Human Rights Awards are:

Peter Duffy Award *
for individuals aged 35 or under.

Maya Evans
For her campaigning work and commitment to the cause of liberty. For her courage in standing up for our fundamental rights to peaceful protest and freedom of speech.

Catharina Harby
For her unceasingly approachable, dedicated and meticulous pro bono human rights work.

Sally Middleton
For her professional expertise and outstanding commitment to the cause of detainees’ rights and for her commitment to fighting against the extension of pre-charge detention in terror cases.


Human Rights Award
for organisations and non-legal individuals

Asylum Aid
For their tenacious legal work and commitment to supporting the rights of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.

Kids Company
For their ground-breaking and inspirational work in helping this country’s most disadvantaged children and young people.

INQUEST
For their high-quality specialist casework and for their commitment to providing incontrovertible evidence of the serious human rights abuses of children in custody.


Human Rights Lawyer of the Year
for solicitors, barristers, legal executives, trainees, pupils, legal academics and judges

Shaheed Fatima
For her remarkable work, often on a pro bono basis. For her brilliant analysis, consistent arguments and commitment in debating human rights cases before both the British and the European Courts.

Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE
For her commitment to fighting injustice experienced by women and children. For her tireless work in seeking remedies for victims of forced marriages and abandoned spouses.

Mark Muller QC
For his continued contribution to the promotion of human rights and his commitment to the defence of vulnerable ethnic and minority communities.

* The Peter Duffy Award commemorates the life and achievements of one of the UK's most highly dedicated human rights lawyers. Peter Duffy QC was particularly supportive of younger lawyers, giving freely of his time and skills. An important part of his human rights work was done pro bono for organisations, including Liberty and Justice.
20071204Outstanding human rights leaders will be honoured for their pioneering and brave work at the Liberty/Justice Human Rights Awards 2007 on 10 December, sponsored by Allen and Overy.01/07/09 ID Cards - When is a climbdown not a climbdown?http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/01-07-09-id-cards-when-is-a-climbdown-not-a-climbdown-.shtmlLiberty responded today to the new Home Secretary’s claims that identity cards for British citizens will be voluntary. Although the Home Secretary said that ‘holding an identity card should be a personal choice for British citizens’, when applying for a passport details will still be entered on the National Identity Register, the massive database that supports the scheme.20090701http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/01-07-09-id-cards-when-is-a-climbdown-not-a-climbdown-.shtml30/06/09 Liberty response to Home Office ID cards announcementhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/30-06-09-liberty-response-to-home-office-id-cards-announcement.shtmlResponding to the new Home Secretary's announcement on ID cards today, Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty, said: 20090630http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/30-06-09-liberty-response-to-home-office-id-cards-announcement.shtml18/06/2009 Former Minister of State for Trade condemns UK’s unfair extradition lawshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/18-06-2009-former-minister-of-state-for-trade-condemns-uka-s-unfair-extrad.shtmlA former Minister of State for Trade has released a statement condemning extradition laws to coincide with the launch of Liberty’s Extradition Watch campaign last night. 20090618http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/18-06-2009-former-minister-of-state-for-trade-condemns-uka-s-unfair-extrad.shtml15/06/09 Liberty poll - "Does Britain still care about human rights?"http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/15-06-09-liberty-poll-does-britain-still-care-about-human-rights-.shtmlIn defiance of recent events, a poll released today by Liberty shows overwhelming support for human rights laws. Despite a week of the Government defending the unjust and unsafe control order system, the Metropolitan police accused of using “waterboarding” techniques with suspects and the BNP winning two European parliament seats, polling reveals that 97% think it is important that there is a law that protects rights and freedoms in the UK.20090615http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/15-06-09-liberty-poll-does-britain-still-care-about-human-rights-.shtml10/06/09 Liberty responds to control order judgmenthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/10-06-09-liberty-responds-to-control-order-judgment.shtmlToday the House of Lords ruled unanimously that the government has violated Article 6 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to fair trial as ‘controlees’ don’t even receive the gist of the allegations against them. Liberty believes that this is another body blow to the unfair and unsafe control order regime.20090610http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/10-06-09-liberty-responds-to-control-order-judgment.shtml10/06/09 'I have lost my family, I have lost everything'. Courts once again consider control orders as controlee begs to leave the UKhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/10-06-09-i-have-lost-my-family-i-have-lost-everything-.-courts-once-again-.shtmlToday the Law Lords will once more consider the Kafkaesque procedure for Control Orders. Meanwhile one controlee, Mahmoud Abu Rideh subject to punishment without trial for 7 ½ years, writes a desperate letter to the Prime Minister begging for release from a system that has driven him to mental instability and attempts at suicide;20090610http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/10-06-09-i-have-lost-my-family-i-have-lost-everything-.-courts-once-again-.shtml08/06/09 Yvette Cooper urged to dump James Purnell’s drug tests for the unemployedhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/08-06-09-yvette-cooper-urged-to-dump-james-purnella-s-drug-tests-for-the-u.shtmlLiberty is today joining forces with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National AIDS Trust to call on Yvette Cooper, the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to reverse James Purnell’s policy of submitting benefit claimants to compulsory drug and alcohol tests. 20090608http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/08-06-09-yvette-cooper-urged-to-dump-james-purnella-s-drug-tests-for-the-u.shtml03/06/09 Politicians, artists and celebrities unite in 75 years of Liberty celebrationhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/03-06-09-politicians-artists-and-celebrities-unite-in-75-years-of-liberty-.shtmlPoliticians, journalists, activists and artists will join in Liberty’s celebratory 75th anniversary conference to be held on Saturday 6 June at Methodist Central Hall, London. 20090603http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/03-06-09-politicians-artists-and-celebrities-unite-in-75-years-of-liberty-.shtml03/06/09 Liberty responds to Home Secretary’s departurehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/03-06-09-liberty-responds-to-home-secretarya-s-departure.shtmlThe Home Secretary confirmed today that she would be standing down at the next cabinet re-shuffle. 20090603http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/03-06-09-liberty-responds-to-home-secretarya-s-departure.shtml02/06/09 Liberty welcomes ‘stay of extradition’http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/02-06-09-liberty-welcomes-a-stay-of-extraditiona-.shtmlPermission was today granted for a student to take his fight against extradition to the House of Lords. Andrew Symeou, 26, is due to be extradited to Greece on manslaughter charges.20090602http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/02-06-09-liberty-welcomes-a-stay-of-extraditiona-.shtml15/05/09 Government climb-down on secret inquestshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/15-05-09-government-climb-down-on-secret-inquests.shtmlHuman rights group Liberty today claimed victory for victims after the Government announced that the secret inquest provisions in the Coroners and Justice bill would be dropped.20090515http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/15-05-09-government-climb-down-on-secret-inquests.shtml07/05/09 Liberty response to Home Office DNA Database proposalshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/07-05-09-liberty-response-to-home-office-dna-database-proposals.shtmlHundreds of thousands of DNA profiles of innocent people are to be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling that the "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of suspects' DNA is unlawful.20090507http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/07-05-09-liberty-response-to-home-office-dna-database-proposals.shtml01/05/09 Liberty condemn High Court extradition decisionhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/01-05-09-liberty-condemn-high-court-extradition-decision.shtmlToday, the High Court ruled that the extradition of Andrew Symeou must go ahead. Andrew Symeou, a young British man accused of manslaughter, is facing extradition to Greece under a European Arrest Warrant without a British court ever considering the evidence in his case.20090501http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/01-05-09-liberty-condemn-high-court-extradition-decision.shtml29/04/09 Liberty applauds former Home Secretary’s denunciation of ID cards schemehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/29-04-09-liberty-applauds-former-home-secretarya-s-denunciation-of-id-card.shtmlLiberty today welcomed former Home Secretary David Blunkett’s dismissal of the identity cards scheme. David Blunkett first put forward the idea of compulsory ID cards when he was Home Secretary in 2001 but has now withdrawn his support for the unpopular plan.20090429http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/29-04-09-liberty-applauds-former-home-secretarya-s-denunciation-of-id-card.shtml27/04/09 Liberty welcomes Government climb-down on centralised communications databasehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/27-04-09-liberty-welcomes-government-climb-down-on-centralised-communicati.shtmlIn a consultation published today, the Government accepted the massive privacy implications of a centralised database holding a record of every email, phone call and text message and confirmed that this plan has been abandoned.20090427http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/27-04-09-liberty-welcomes-government-climb-down-on-centralised-communicati.shtml20/04/09 Response to police search for information on Liberty in MP emailshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/20-04-09-response-to-police-search-for-information-on-liberty-in-mp-emails.shtmlIn response to revelations that Police who arrested the Conservative frontbencher Damian Green searched his private e-mails looking for information on Liberty (The Times, April 18 2009)20090420http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/20-04-09-response-to-police-search-for-information-on-liberty-in-mp-emails.shtml17/04/09 Full investigation into riot policing methods needed in the wake of G20 protestshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/17-04-09-full-investigation-into-riot-policing-methods-needed-in-the-wake-.shtmlLiberty welcomes Metropolitan Police review of all footage from the G20 demonstration and urges speed and transparency in IPCC investigation.20090417http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/17-04-09-full-investigation-into-riot-policing-methods-needed-in-the-wake-.shtml26/03/09 Liberty welcomes police investigation into Binyam Mohamed torture casehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/26-03-09-liberty-welcomes-police-investigation-into-binyam-mohamed-torture.shtmlThe Attorney General announced today that she has asked the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to investigate British involvement in the alleged kidnap and torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed. 20090326http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/26-03-09-liberty-welcomes-police-investigation-into-binyam-mohamed-torture.shtml24/03/09 Battle against secret inquests moves to the House of Lordshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/24-03-09-battle-against-secret-inquests-moves-to-the-house-of-lords.shtmlHuman rights group Liberty said the battle against the Government’s secret inquest proposals will now be taken up in the House of Lords.20090324http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/24-03-09-battle-against-secret-inquests-moves-to-the-house-of-lords.shtml18/03/09 'What about the victims?' - Inquest and Liberty hold parliamentary meeting on Government plans for secret inquestshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/18-03-09-what-about-the-victims-inquest-and-liberty-hold-parliamentary-mee.shtmlInquest and Liberty held a parliamentary meeting today on the secret inquest provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill. Chaired by Frank Dobson MP, parliamentarians were addressed by Susan Alexander, bereaved mother of Azelle Rodney who was shot dead by the Metropolitan Police in 2005, Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest and Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty.20090318http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/18-03-09-what-about-the-victims-inquest-and-liberty-hold-parliamentary-mee.shtml17/03/09 Liberty wins ruling against Home Secretary over Harmondsworth disturbancehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/17-03-09-liberty-wins-ruling-against-home-secretary-over-harmondsworth-dis.shtmlThe Court of Appeal has ruled today that the Government was wrong not to order an independent inquiry into allegations of mistreatment at Harmondsworth immigration detention centre in 2006.20090317http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/17-03-09-liberty-wins-ruling-against-home-secretary-over-harmondsworth-dis.shtml16/03/09 Inquest and Liberty to hold parliamentary meeting on Government plans for secret inquestshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/16-03-09-inquest-and-liberty-to-hold-parliamentary-meeting-on-government-p.shtmlInquest and Liberty will hold a parliamentary meeting on the secret inquest provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill.20090316http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/16-03-09-inquest-and-liberty-to-hold-parliamentary-meeting-on-government-p.shtml06/03/09 Coroners and Justice Bill could allow black-listing databaseshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/06-03-09-coroners-and-justice-bill-could-allow-black-listing-databases.shtmlInformation-sharing powers in the Coroners and Justice Bill could allow the creation of databases like those seen in today’s construction industry black-listing scandal.20090306http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/06-03-09-coroners-and-justice-bill-could-allow-black-listing-databases.shtml02/03/09 Liberty urges MPs to vote down control ordershttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/02-03-09-liberty-urges-mps-to-vote-down-control-orders.shtmlParliament will tomorrow debate whether the controversial control orders system will be renewed. Control orders, established in 2005, allow terror suspects to be tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others indefinitely without charge or trial.20090302http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/02-03-09-liberty-urges-mps-to-vote-down-control-orders.shtml24/02/09 Happy Birthday Libertyhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/24-02-09-happy-birthday-liberty.shtml75 years ago today the human rights group Liberty (the National Council of Civil Liberties) was launched by a group of high profile figures of the day including HG Wells, Harold Laski, Vera Brittain and led by Ronald Kidd.20090224http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/24-02-09-happy-birthday-liberty.shtml19/02/2009 Court of Human Rights rules indefinite detention without charge wronghttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/19-02-2009-court-of-human-rights-rules-indefinite-detention-without-charge.shtmlIn a judgment today, the Court of Human Rights has upheld the Law Lords 2004 landmark ruling that indefinite detention without charge for foreign terror suspects in Belmarsh prison was disproportionate and unlawful.20090219http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/19-02-2009-court-of-human-rights-rules-indefinite-detention-without-charge.shtml04/02/09 Foreign Office claims Obama blocking torture judgmenthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/04-02-09-foreign-office-claims-obama-blocking-torture-judgment.shtmlIn a High Court judgment handed down today it emerged that the British Government, in an attempt to prevent full disclosure of the UK involvement in torture, told the Court that disclosure would harm the intelligence sharing relationship between the US and the UK.20090204http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/04-02-09-foreign-office-claims-obama-blocking-torture-judgment.shtml27/01/09 Liberty and the American Civil Liberties Union build “new special relationship”http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/27-01-09-liberty-and-the-american-civil-liberties-union-build-a-new-specia.shtmlExecutive Director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, and Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti have met with Government officials and leading Parliamentarians with the purpose of establishing a new Anglo-American alliance based on respect for civil liberties and human rights.20090127http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/27-01-09-liberty-and-the-american-civil-liberties-union-build-a-new-specia.shtmlDay 22: International Privacy Dayhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-22-international-privacy-day.shtml20090126http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-22-international-privacy-day.shtmlDay 21 Obamamaniahttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-21-obamamania.shtml20090122http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-21-obamamania.shtml21/01/09 Liberty issues asylum election warninghttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/21-01-09-liberty-issues-asylum-election-warning.shtmlIn a speech to be given tonight, Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti will emphasise the importance of protecting asylum seekers in political debate and call for politicians to sign Liberty’s Asylum Election Pledge.20090121http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/21-01-09-liberty-issues-asylum-election-warning.shtmlDay 19 Celebrity glass ceilinghttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-19-celebrity-glass-ceiling.shtml20090120http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-19-celebrity-glass-ceiling.shtmlDay 15 Even BB housemates have human rightshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-15-even-bb-housemates-have-human-rights.shtml20090116http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-15-even-bb-housemates-have-human-rights.shtmlDay 14 Cardboard cars vs police searcheshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-14-cardboard-cars-vs-police-searches.shtml20090115http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-14-cardboard-cars-vs-police-searches.shtmlDay 13 Supersize surveillance systemhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-13-supersize-surveillance-system.shtml20090114http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-13-supersize-surveillance-system.shtmlDay 12 Best of British... Human Rights?http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-12-best-of-british...-human-rights-.shtml20090113http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-12-best-of-british...-human-rights-.shtmlDay 11 Careless talk costs tokenshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-11-careless-talk-costs-tokens.shtml20090112http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/5-big-brother-diary/day-11-careless-talk-costs-tokens.shtml18/12/08 Liberty and the FSF fight for human rights of football fanshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/18-12-08-liberty-and-the-fsf-fight-for-human-rights-of-football-fans.shtmlRelying on section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act, the Greater Manchester Police rounded up 80 Stoke City fans who had stopped at a pub on the way to a match at Old Trafford on 15 November.20081218http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/18-12-08-liberty-and-the-fsf-fight-for-human-rights-of-football-fans.shtml10/12/08 British public overwhelmingly support Human Rightshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/10-12-08-british-public-overwhelmingly-support-human-rights.shtmlDespite overwhelming public support for a law protecting rights and freedoms, new poll figures show the Government has failed to inform the public about the Human Rights Act. The polling, released on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, reveals overwhelming support for the contents of the Human Rights Act, with 96% believing that it is important that there is a law that protects rights and freedoms in Britain.20081210http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/10-12-08-british-public-overwhelmingly-support-human-rights.shtml04/12/2008 Retaining DNA samples of innocents breaches human rightshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/04-12-2008-retaining-dna-samples-of-innocents-breaches-human-rights.shtmlThe DNA profiles of roughly 850,000 innocent people should be taken off the National DNA Database (NDNAD) following a European Court of Human Rights judgment today said Liberty. Two Britons whose DNA was retained by police brought the legal challenge, claiming that their inclusion on the NDNAD continued to cast suspicion on them after they had been cleared of any wrong-doing.20081204http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/04-12-2008-retaining-dna-samples-of-innocents-breaches-human-rights.shtml02/12/08 New Citizenship Bill to bring compulsory ID cards via the back doorhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/02-12-08-new-citizenship-bill-to-bring-compulsory-id-cards-via-the-back-do.shtmlNew powers to establish compulsory identity cards via the back door are to be introduced in the Immigration and Citizenship bill in the Queen’s speech tomorrow, said Liberty. Powers to examine identity documents, previously thought to apply only in UK ports of entry, will be extended through hidden clauses in the bill to criminalize anyone in Britain who has ever left the country and fails to produce identity papers upon demand.20081202http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/02-12-08-new-citizenship-bill-to-bring-compulsory-id-cards-via-the-back-do.shtmlDamien Green's arresthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/damien-green-s-arrest.shtmlThe human rights group Liberty expressed concern about the heavy-handed arrest of Shadow Immigration Secretary Damian Green for allegedly “aiding and abetting misconduct in a public office” yesterday. Liberty was dismayed that on the eve of appointing a new Commissioner, the Metropolitan Police may have yet to learn important lessons about the dangers of becoming embroiled in politics.20081128http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/damien-green-s-arrest.shtml25/11/08 Liberty to support “shock jock” Jon Gaunthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/25-11-08-liberty-to-support-shock-jock-jon-gaunt.shtmlSacked “shock jock” Jon Gaunt today welcomed the support of human rights group Liberty in his legal battle against talkSport radio.20081125http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/25-11-08-liberty-to-support-shock-jock-jon-gaunt.shtml06/11/08 Liberty warns against expensive and invasive ID card schemehttp://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.20081106http://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.shtml24/10/08 Liberty argues vulnerable psychiatric patients deserve same protections as prisonershttp://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.20081024http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/24-10-08-liberty-argues-vulnerable-psychiatric-patients-deserve-same-prote.shtml23/10/08 Law Lords to consider “deportation to torture” appealshttp://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.20081023http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/23-10-08-law-lords-to-consider-deportation-to-torture-appeals.shtml22/10/08 Mother facing separation from her son granted refugehttp://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.20081022http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/22-10-08-mother-facing-separation-from-her-son-granted-refuge.shtml14/10/08 VICTORY FOR LIBERTY'S CHARGE OR RELEASE CAMPAIGNhttp://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. 20081014http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/14-10-08-victory-for-liberty-s-charge-or-release-campaign.shtml13/10/08 Lords defeat Government on 42 days pre-charge detentionhttp://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 - 118.20081013http://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.shtml12/10/08 '42 Writers for Liberty' oppose 42 days pre-charge detentionhttp://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. 20081012http://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.shtml02/10/08 Liberty response to Sir Ian Blair's resignationhttp://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.20081002http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/02-10-08-liberty-response-to-sir-ian-blair-s-resignation.shtml30/09/08 Council of Europe report criticises Government anti-terror planshttp://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.”20080930http://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.shtml24/09/08 Liberty warns against expensive and unnecessary ID card schemehttp://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.20080924http://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.shtml19/09/08 Government action, not empty promises, for child asylum seekershttp://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.20080919http://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.shtml16/09/08 Scrap unfair age assessment of child asylum seekershttp://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.20080916http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/16-09-08-scrap-unfair-age-assessment-of-child-asylum-seekers.shtmlShami to address Newcastle University Business Schoolhttp://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. 20080904http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/shami-to-address-newcastle-university-business-school.shtmlPlymouth City Council mosquito hearinghttp://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.20080902http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/plymouth-city-council-mosquito-hearing.shtmlVictory for Sikh schoolgirlhttp://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.20080729http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/victory-for-sikh-schoolgirl.shtmlMother facing separation from her sonhttp://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. 20080718http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mother-facing-separation-from-her-son.shtmlDavis by-election winhttp://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.20080711http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/davis-by-election-win.shtmlPeers to begin opposition to 42 day pre-charge detention planshttp://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.20080708http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/peers-to-begin-opposition-to-42-day-pre-charge-detention-plans.shtmlLiberty wins Voluntary Sector Public Affairs Campaign of the yearhttp://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.20080704http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/liberty-wins-voluntary-sector-public-affairs-campaign-of-the-year.shtmlPolice Foundation lecturehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/police-foundation-lecture.shtmlIn a speech tomorrow to senior police officers, politicians and judges, Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti will say that the role of the police has been undermined by political pressure from successive governments. Chakrabarti is to deliver the annual Police Foundation’s John Harris Memorial Lecture at Draper Hall at 18:00 on 2 July 2008.20080701http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/police-foundation-lecture.shtmlGovernment must review Regulation of Investigatory Powers Acthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/government-must-review-regulation-of-investigatory-powers-act.shtmlIn a significant judgement today, the European Court of Human Rights found that UK surveillance laws had lacked the necessary clarity and accountability to prevent abuses of power when used to intercept cross-border communications.20080701http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/government-must-review-regulation-of-investigatory-powers-act.shtmlDonation from Desmond Elliott Prize winnerhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/donation-from-desmond-elliott-prize-winner.shtmlLiberty today expressed profound thanks to prize-winning author Nikita Lalwani, who has donated her £10,000 Desmond Elliott Prize award to the human rights group.20080627http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/donation-from-desmond-elliott-prize-winner.shtmlCall for Investigation into Harmondsworthhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/call-for-investigation-into-harmondsworth.shtmlOn Monday 23 June, the High Court will determine whether an independent investigation must be held after vulnerable detainees were locked in flooded cells without food or water while fires burned during a disturbance in Harmondsworth detention centre. 20080620http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/call-for-investigation-into-harmondsworth.shtmlLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti's letter to Secretary of State Andy Burnhamhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/liberty-director-shami-chakrabarti-s-letter-to-secretary-of-state-andy-bur.shtmlLetter from Liberty Director to Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in response to recent article in Progress magazine.20080619http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/liberty-director-shami-chakrabarti-s-letter-to-secretary-of-state-andy-bur.shtmlDavid Davis resignation responsehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/david-davis-resignation-response.shtmlResponse to the resignation of Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, who will run for re-election on a civil liberties platform including his opposition to extending pre-charge detention for terror suspects to 42 days.20080612http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/david-davis-resignation-response.shtmlBattle against extending pre-charge detention moves to House of Lordshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/battle-against-extending-pre-charge-detention-moves-to-house-of-lords.shtmlHuman rights group Liberty said the battle against the Government’s Counter-Terror Bill proposals to detain suspects for 42 days without charge will now be taken up in the House of Lords. Narrowly passed in the House of Commons today (315-306), the controversial proposals have generated widespread concern about the negative impact on civil liberties and community relations.20080611http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/battle-against-extending-pre-charge-detention-moves-to-house-of-lords.shtmlCelebrities and MPs join Liberty for Westminster protest against Government’s Counter-Terror planshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/celebrities-and-mps-join-liberty-for-westminster-protest-against-governmen.shtmlLiberty will be joined by actor Honor Blackman, designer Vivienne Westwood, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, Labour MP Diane Abbott, and Lib-Dem Chris Huhne MP in a protest outside Westminster on the eve of the vote on Government plans to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. Liberty opposes extending pre-charge detention limits which will promote injustice and alienate Muslim communities.20080610http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/celebrities-and-mps-join-liberty-for-westminster-protest-against-governmen.shtmlFACT AND FICTION ABOUT THE EXISTING 28-DAY PRE-CHARGE DETENTION LIMIThttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/fact-and-fiction-about-the-existing-28-day-pre-charge-detention-limit.shtmlHuman rights group Liberty today received startling information relating to Ministerial claims about the use of the existing pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects. This information undermines repeated claims that the authorities have been “up against the buffers” with the current 28 day detention period.20080610http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/fact-and-fiction-about-the-existing-28-day-pre-charge-detention-limit.shtmlGovernment offers “Cons”, not Concessions on Counter-Terror Billhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/government-offers-cons-not-concessions-on-counter-terror-bill.shtmlThe Government’s Counter-Terror Bill amendments are “cons”, not concessions, and offer no safeguards for suspects who could be detained for up to six weeks and then released without charge.20080603http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/government-offers-cons-not-concessions-on-counter-terror-bill.shtmlFree speech victory as charges against teen anti-Scientology protestor droppedhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/free-speech-victory-as-charges-against-teen-anti-scientology-protestor-dro.shtmlToday the City of London Police have dropped the charges against a 16-year-old anti-Scientology protestor for using the word “cult” in a move the human rights group Liberty called a “free speech victory.”20080523http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/free-speech-victory-as-charges-against-teen-anti-scientology-protestor-dro.shtmlHuman rights laws require police to protect witnesses in dangerhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/human-rights-laws-require-police-to-protect-witnesses-in-danger.shtmlIn a case to be heard by the House of Lords today, Liberty will contend that police are obliged under human rights laws to protect witnesses who are known to be in danger.20080519http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/human-rights-laws-require-police-to-protect-witnesses-in-danger.shtmlIndependent inquiry for Baha Mousahttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/independent-inquiry-for-baha-mousa.shtmlLiberty response to the announcement of an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Iraqi civilian Baha Mousa.20080514http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/independent-inquiry-for-baha-mousa.shtmlLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti tells MPs 54% public believe Government terror proposals meant to look "tough on terror".http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/liberty-director-shami-chakrabarti-tells-mps-54-public-believe-government-.shtmlToday Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti told MPs that 54 percent of the public believe the Government’s motivation for extending pre-charge detention periods is to look “tough on terror” based on YouGov poll findings.20080424http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/liberty-director-shami-chakrabarti-tells-mps-54-public-believe-government-.shtmlinternational embarrassmenthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/international-embarrassment.shtmlLiberty’s Director Shami Chakrabarti will tell the Foreign Press Association that controversial measures in the Government’s Counter-Terrorism bill will undermine Britain’s international reputation as a country which respects the rule of law.20080407http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/international-embarrassment.shtmlCT Bill 2nd Readinghttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/ct-bill-2nd-reading.shtmlLiberty Director Shami Chakrabarti responds to the second reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill in the House of Commons.20080401http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/ct-bill-2nd-reading.shtmlTerror Bill 2nd readinghttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/terror-bill-2nd-reading.shtmlOn the eve of the Counter-Terrorism Bill’s second reading, the human rights group Liberty has urged the Government to drop controversial plans to hold suspects for up to 42 days without charge. For nine months, Liberty has been organizing a cross-party political and public campaign against the divisive policy, which would create injustice and undermine community relations.20080331http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/terror-bill-2nd-reading.shtmlMoD human rights violation -Baha Mousahttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mod-human-rights-violation-baha-mousa.shtmlThe Ministry of Defence today admitted violating the human rights of Iraqi Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist who died in 2003 after sustaining 93 injuries while in UK detention in Iraq.20080327http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mod-human-rights-violation-baha-mousa.shtmlID card roll outhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/id-card-roll-out.shtmlThe Government’s announcement that ID cards will soon be compulsory for foreign nationals, “high-risk” workers and eventually students is an attempt to soften up the public before making ID cards compulsory for all British nationals, warned Liberty today.20080306http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/id-card-roll-out.shtmlHigh court considers harmondsworth inquiryhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/high-court-considers-harmondsworth-inquiry.shtmlLiberty will tell the High Court tomorrow that vulnerable detainees were left in overcrowded, flooded cells without food or water while fires burned during a disturbance in Harmondsworth detention centre and call for a public inquiry into the incident.20080303http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/high-court-considers-harmondsworth-inquiry.shtmlCinema adhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/cinema-ad.shtmlToday Liberty will launch a powerful cinema ad to raise awareness of the negative human impact of the Government’s controversial plans to hold terror suspects for 42 days without charge.20080229http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/cinema-ad.shtmlechr torture prohibitionhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/echr-torture-prohibition.shtmlToday the European Court of Human Rights upheld the absolute prohibition against torture requiring Governments to protect individuals who may face torture in their home country.20080228http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/echr-torture-prohibition.shtmlEuropean Court of Human Rights DNA case will promote national database debate, says Libertyhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/european-court-of-human-rights-dna-case-will-promote-national-database-deb.shtmlTwo individuals whose DNA was taken by police and retained on the national DNA database although they were later found to be innocent are to have their case heard by the European Court of Human Rights.20080227http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/european-court-of-human-rights-dna-case-will-promote-national-database-deb.shtmlExtraordinary rendition flightshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/extraordinary-rendition-flights.shtmlLiberty today called for a full inquiry into UK complicity with US extraordinary rendition flights in which kidnapped suspects are taken to third countries where they may face torture.20080221http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/extraordinary-rendition-flights.shtmlwelcome intercept evidencehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/welcome-intercept-evidence.shtmlLiberty today welcomed the Privy Council Report’s findings that a new framework can be introduced to allow the use of intercept evidence in criminal trials and called for 42 day detention proposal to be scrapped.20080206http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/welcome-intercept-evidence.shtmlMP surveillancehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mp-surveillance.shtmlLiberty today welcomed the inquiry by Sir Christopher Rose into the alleged surveillance of Sadiq Khan MP during a visit to Woodhill prison two years ago.20080204http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mp-surveillance.shtmlLessons from Northern Irelandhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/lessons-from-northern-ireland.shtmlA comprehensive report published on 31 January offers legislators anti-terror insights from Northern Ireland conflict.20080130http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/lessons-from-northern-ireland.shtmlnew terror measureshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/new-terror-measures.shtmlToday the Government will push ahead with controversial plans to extend pre-charge detention periods from 28 to 42 days for terror suspects despite widespread concerns that the measures would be counter-productive.20080124http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/new-terror-measures.shtmlHearing for Sikh Schoolgirlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/hearing-for-sikh-schoolgirl.shtmlThe High Court today has decided to hear the case of 14-year-old Sarika Singh, excluded from Aberdare Girl’s School in South Wales for wearing a Sikh religious bangle.20080123http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/hearing-for-sikh-schoolgirl.shtmlHigh Court Sikh Schoolgirlhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/high-court-sikh-schoolgirl.shtmlWith the backing of UNITED SIKHS, the human rights group Liberty has filed a legal challenge in the High Court on behalf of 14-year-old Sarika Singh, excluded from her school for wearing a Sikh religious bangle.20080104http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/high-court-sikh-schoolgirl.shtmlMP Pollhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mp-poll.shtmlPoll figures released today reveal widespread Parliamentary opposition to the Government’s anti-terror proposal to extend pre-charge detention, with nearly half of Labour MPs raising serious concerns.20080103http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2008/mp-poll.shtmlHome Affairs Committee opposes extension beyond 28 dayshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/home-affairs-committee-opposes-extension-beyond-28-days.shtmlToday the Home Affairs Select Committee announced its unequivocal opposition to extending pre-charge detention, noting that neither the Government nor police had made the case to go beyond the current 28-day limit. The Committee also backed alternatives suggested by Liberty, including the use of intercept evidence in terror trials and allowing post-charge questioning of terror suspects.20071213http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/home-affairs-committee-opposes-extension-beyond-28-days.shtmlIraq ruling by Law Lordshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/iraq-ruling-by-law-lords.shtmlThe UK cannot pass responsibility to the United Nations for its human rights abuses in Iraq following a Law Lords ruling today.20071212http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/iraq-ruling-by-law-lords.shtmlHome Secretary’s anti-terror plans abandon vital safeguardshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/home-secretary-s-anti-terror-plans-abandon-vital-safeguards.shtmlToday Liberty reaffirmed its opposition to the Home Secretary’s proposals to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days in terror cases. The human rights group dismissed the Government’s scheme which contains superficial Parliamentary and judicial oversight. Crucially, extension can be introduced without a genuine emergency.20071211http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/home-secretary-s-anti-terror-plans-abandon-vital-safeguards.shtmlGovernment ignores consensus on pre-charge detentionhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/government-ignores-consensus-on-pre-charge-detention.shtmlThe Government will today ignore the growing consensus against extending pre-charge detention for terror suspects when it announces new anti-terror powers which lack the safeguards of existing laws.20071206http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/government-ignores-consensus-on-pre-charge-detention.shtmlJerry Springer rulinghttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/jerry-springer-ruling.shtmlOut-dated blasphemous libel laws were critically weakened today when a High Court judge found the laws could only apply if the material is “so…offensive in manner that it undermines society...” A private prosecution brought by the group Christian Voice against the producer and broadcaster of Jerry Springer – the Opera was thrown out in the first test of the blasphemy laws in nearly 30 years.20071205http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/jerry-springer-ruling.shtmlHome Affairs Select Committee draft report on anti-terror powershttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/home-affairs-select-committee-draft-report-on-anti-terror-powers.shtmlResponse to reports of a leaked Home Affairs Select Committee draft report on anti-terror powers.20071205http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/home-affairs-select-committee-draft-report-on-anti-terror-powers.shtmlHuman Rights Awardshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/human-rights-awards.shtmlOutstanding human rights leaders will be honoured for their pioneering and brave work at the Liberty/Justice Human Rights Awards 2007 on 10 December, sponsored by Allen and Overy.20071204http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/human-rights-awards.shtml