Liberty Human Rightshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.ukHuman rights and civil liberties news from UK campaigning group Liberty.Liberty demands extradition justice – Government must activate existing statutory safeguardToday Liberty calls on the Government to activate a provision in the Extradition Act that would introduce a crucial safeguard into the British system. The “forum amendment" was supported by Coalition parties in opposition and has lain dormant on the statute books for four years. It allows a UK court to consider barring extradition if a significant part of the conduct that led to an alleged crime took place in or from the UK.

Liberty will stage a demonstration calling for a review of Britain’s unfair extradition arrangements on the day of the hearing of Kent businessman, Christopher Tappin, whose case could have been heard in a UK court had the amendment been active.

Shami Chakrabarti, director at Liberty said:

"Britain's rotten Extradition system is in urgent need of overhaul but justice begins with a simple first step. Parliament must click the switch and activate the judicial safeguard supported by both Coalition parties in 2006. Without it, people in Britain remain vulnerable to accusation and transportation across the globe."

Tappin faces accusations that in the UK, he deliberately and knowingly tried to export batteries for Hawk missiles from the United States via the Netherlands for later shipping to Iran. Tappin faces up to 35 years in a US prison if convicted.



NOTES TO EDITORS

1. In 2006 amendments were made to the Extradition Act that would allow a UK court to bar extradition on the basis of "forum", giving UK judges greater power to decide on the basis of each individual case whether it is appropriate to order extradition. Yet, these provisions have never been brought into force. When the law was introduced as an Opposition amendment in 2006 the previous Government only agreed to it after introducing a ‘killing clause’ – ensuring that the law could not be brought into force unless both Houses of Parliament passed a resolution to do so. The previous Government never intended to bring it into force - the then Home Secretary the Rt Hon Jon Reid MP was explicit about this when he said: “The Government are not, of course, obliged to bring forward such a resolution, and have no intention of doing so“.

2. If each House of Parliament passes a resolution to bring the forum amendment into force, then the Home Secretary must make a commencement order. This order must bring the provisions into force within one month of the resolutions being made.

20100827Liberty responds to counter-terror review – end control orders, reduce pre-charge detention and make intercept evidence admissible in courtWhen the Home Secretary launched the review in the House of Commons in June, she also announced that Liberty had accepted her express invitation to contribute to what the organisation described as a ‘once in a generation opportunity for reform’.

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

Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy, said:

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

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


- Scrap the unfair and unsafe control order house arrest regime which has not enhanced national security but cost the taxpayer £13 million over three years.

- Revise the Terrorist Asset Freezing Regime so that it no longer targets those who have never been arrested, charged or convicted in relation to a terrorism offence.

- Overhaul Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 so that exceptional stop and search powers without reasonable suspicion may be justified only in very limited circumstances.

- Thoroughly review RIPA surveillance powers and look at restricting their use to law enforcement agencies.

- Respect the rule against torture in deportation policy and urge countries in receipt of British aid, trade and security cooperation to refrain from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.

- Define restrictions on free speech and association (aimed at terrorist organisations) more tightly.

- Reduce the pre-charge detention period for terror suspects

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

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

James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said:

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

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


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. For a full copy of the report please contact Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

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

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

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

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

6. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) regulates the use and access of targeted surveillance by public bodies. Liberty has long been calling for a comprehensive review of RIPA powers and authorisation processes and have asked for the following:
a. All interception of communications and intrusive surveillance to be authorised by judicial warrant.
b. All other types of surveillance to be independently authorised and depending on the level of intrusion, some powers may require authorisation by a magistrate.
c. The number of public bodies that have access to surveillance powers to be reduced.
d. The purposes for which intrusive surveillance can be authorised to be restricted in scope.
e. An overhaul of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal procedure where most applications for review of surveillance powers must go but which is fundamentally flawed.
Liberty has produced an introductory guide to RIPA, which is available here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/3-privacy/pdfs/ripa-powers.pdf  

20100819Human rights group demands that Coalition Government moves "From 'War' to Law" in anti-terror strategy.Today Liberty published "From 'War' to Law", its 137 page response to the Government counter-terror review.Victory in school mum snooping caseThe Council had subjected the whole family, including the children, to surveillance for three weeks in 2008. It claimed that it was acting under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), in order to discover whether the family lived within the catchment area where the children went to school. But the IPT ruled that was not a proper purpose and nor was it necessary to use the surveillance powers.

Today’s landmark ruling is the first time these intrusive powers – controversially granted to local authorities under RIPA – have been challenged at an open hearing before the IPT.

Corinna Ferguson, Legal Officer for Liberty, said:

“Intrusive surveillance is vital to fighting terrorism and serious crime but weak legal protections and petty abuses of power bring it into disrepute. Former Ministers claimed that the innocent had nothing to fear but the sinister treatment of Jenny and her kids proves that these powers need to be far more tightly restricted and supervised.”

The IPT also found that the surveillance breached the family’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Contact Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) regulates the use and access of targeted surveillance by public bodies. In a move welcomed by Liberty, the new Government is reviewing the use of RIPA powers by local authorities as part of the Counter Terror Review announced by the Home Secretary last month. In the Coalition agreement it stated that the Government would limit local authority use of RIPA to “stopping serious crime” and only when approved by a magistrate.

2. Liberty has long called for a comprehensive review of RIPA powers and authorisation processes and has asked for the following:

a. All interception of communications and intrusive surveillance to be authorised by judicial warrant.
b. All other types of surveillance to be independently authorised and depending on the level of intrusion, some powers may require authorisation by a magistrate.
c. The number of public bodies that have access to surveillance powers to be reduced.
d. The purposes for which intrusive surveillance can be authorised to be restricted in scope.
e. An overhaul of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal procedure where most applications for review of surveillance powers must go but which is fundamentally flawed.

3. Liberty has produced an introductory guide to RIPA, which is available here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/3-privacy/pdfs/ripa-powers.pdf
 
4. In 2003, in a case brought by Liberty in its own name and on behalf of a client, the IPT ruled that it could hold hearings to determine legal issues in public. Jenny Paton’s case is the first in which the IPT has held a public hearing to consider a complaint substantively. The IPT deals with complaints about surveillance but also interception of communications. Prior to today’s ruling it had only ever found in favour of complainants on three occasions.
 
5. Jenny Paton was placed under surveillance by Poole Borough Council in 2008 to check that she lived in her declared school catchment area. The case caused outrage yet it only came to light because it was incidentally revealed to Ms Paton that she and her family had been under surveillance. The surveillance lasted three weeks and included council officers spying on the family home, trailing Ms Paton’s young daughters and recording the family’s movements.

20100802Tribunal finds in favour of RIPA covert surveillance victimsToday the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ruled unlawful Poole Borough Council’s surveillance of mum-of-three Jenny Paton and her family.
Liberty warns MP who refuses to see veiled constituents of unlawful discrimination  
In earlier and well- publicised remarks, the MP for Kettering stated that he would not meet with any constituent who refused to remove a niqab or burka. 
 
The warning letter advises that “as an MP providing a service… the obligation under the Equality Act not to discriminate… applies to you” and makes clear that Liberty “will be happy to represent any of your constituents that you refuse to meet because they are veiled.” 
 
James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said: 
 
“Religion is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate but in the UK at least, it is not a lawful basis for discrimination. Here the struggle for religious freedom was vital to the struggle for democracy itself. Common sense and decency suggest that neither freedom nor integration is achieved by cutting people off from their elected representatives or arresting them for walking down the street.” 
 
“We have written to Mr Hollobone to advise him of the law as enacted by Parliament and feel confident that no well-advised Honourable Member would seek to breach it by meeting with Constituents on a discriminatory basis.” 
 
Article 9 of the ECHR states that everyone has the freedom to manifest their religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. Any interferences with this right must be both necessary (e.g. to protect other people) and proportionate.  The Equality Act 2006 prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of a person’s religion or belief.  This prohibition applies to, amongst others, those providing a service or who have functions of a public nature. 
 
Journalists contact Liberty’s press office 
 
NOTES TO EDITORS: 
 
1. The niqab is a veil for covering the hair and face except for the eyes.  The burka is a loose enveloping garment that covers the face and body. 
 
2. In an interview with the Independent on 17July 2010, Mr Hollobone MP was asked about meeting with veiled constituents.  He said "I would ask her to remove her veil. If she said: 'No', I would take the view that she could see my face, I could not see hers, I am not able to satisfy myself she is who she says she is. I would invite her to communicate with me in a different way, probably in the form of a letter.” A link to the article can be found here.

3. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: 
 
-     Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 
 
-     Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others20100725Liberty lawyers have written to Philip Hollobone MP warning him of potential legal action if he refuses to meet with constituents on the basis of their religious dress.Court in Jon Gaunt free speech case accepts ‘Nazi’ is legitimate political slangMr Gaunt called Redbridge Councillor Michael Stark 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. Ofcom found that the interview in November 2008 breached the Broadcasting Code.

Reviewing Ofcom’s decision, the High Court said today the word Nazi was “capable of being highly insulting” but that in context it “may be seen as an emphatic and pejorative assertion that Mr Stark was, in the matter of smoking and fostering children, one who imposes his views on others. It was not, in the context, a description of Mr Stark’s wider political or ideological position.”

Although the Court accepted that the language used by Mr Gaunt was ‘political speech’ and thus deserving of the highest level of protection under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, it found that Ofcom’s finding was justified because Mr Gaunt had “lost his rag” and the later part of the interview had become abusive shouting.

Mr Gaunt and his legal team at Howe and Co have announced their intention to challenge today’s ruling, which if allowed to stand may have a chilling effect on robust political interviews.

Corinna Ferguson, legal officer at human rights group Liberty, which intervened in the case because of its wider importance to free speech, said:

“There is a great deal to welcome in today’s judgment and Ofcom should reflect on the close scrutiny it will face from now on. The Human Rights Act protects “shock jocks” as much as flagship political commentators and free speech is no more worthy with extra syllables. However, we are not convinced that the Court has fully applied its own logic and hope that this can be improved upon in the Court of Appeal.”

In today’s judgment, Sir Anthony May, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, said:

“The subject of the interview was political and controversial and the person interviewed was an elected politician who would expect to receive and tolerate a rough ride. The expressions complained of were not essentially statements of fact, but expressions of value or opinion. It was therefore an interview where the claimant’s freedom of expression should be accorded a high degree of protection and that was capable of extending to offensive expression.”

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

Notes to Editors

1. In November 2008, Redbridge Council announced a policy prohibiting smokers (even those who smoked outside the home) from fostering or adopting children. Councillor Michael Stark defended the policy and was invited onto Jon Gaunt’s talkSPORT radio show on 7 November 2008. As a former foster child himself, Gaunt expressed the view that it was more important for children to have a good parent than a non-smoking parent. In the heated debate that followed, Gaunt referred to Councillor Stark as a “health Nazi”, a “Nazi” and an “ignorant pig”. Gaunt offered an apology for the comments; however a few days later the management at talkSPORT sacked him.

2. On 27 January 2010, in the High Court, Jon Gaunt won the right to challenge the Ofcom finding on the basis that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
20100713High Court establishes important free speech principles but former TALKsport ‘shock jock’ loses his caseToday the radio talk show host Jon Gaunt lost his judicial review proceedings against Ofcom’s decision to uphold complaints about a heated interview between Mr Gaunt and a local politician.
Protest walk goes ahead with Liberty’s supportHad this decision stood, organisers may have been forced to abandon the walk because of the prohibitive logistical and financial burden of securing road closure orders and the like.

Liberty’s legal team wrote to North Yorkshire Police to remind them of their responsibility to ensure that lawful peaceful protests can take place. As a result, police revisited their position and on Sunday 4 July the walk took place as planned.

Liberty’s Legal Director, James Welch, said:

"North Yorkshire Police are to be congratulated for seeing sense. Democracy only works when people are free to express dissent, and our police forces have a duty to uphold and support this right. Liberty is pleased to have helped secure this very positive outcome."

Lindis Percy, co-ordinator of the Campaign for Accountability of American Bases (CAAB) which organises the annual protest walk, said:

“It was important that we re-established the walk round the base as it is the duty of the police to enable peaceful protest. With Liberty's help we re-established the protest walk and retrieved an important civil liberty."

Contact the Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

Contact the Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases - CAAB at www.caab.org.uk


NOTES TO EDITORS

There has been a demonstration at the American military base at Menwith Hill, near Harrogate North Yorkshire since 1982. Held annually on 4 July, it had to be abandoned last year due to North Yorkshire Police’s unwillingness to facilitate the demonstration.



20100713A long-standing annual protest against the American military base at Menwith Hill went ahead on 4 July, despite an initial stance by police that they would no longer facilitate the event.Home Secretary invites Liberty to contribute to counter-terror reviewConducted by the Home Office, it will be overseen by Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions. He has been credited with professionalising anti-terror prosecutions and has secured successful convictions in a number of high profile terror cases.

The Home Secretary has asked for Liberty’s involvement in the review and the human rights organisation is delighted to accept this welcome invitation.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“No one underestimates the terrorism threat and everyone wants to see a country united, safe and free. Liberty welcomes this once in a generation opportunity to reform counter-terror measures and bring them within the rule of law. We intend to do everything within our power to ensure that the Government does not waste it.”

Journalists contact: Liberty’s press office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. The UK has the longest pre-charge detention limit in the western world. Pre-charge detention refers to the length of time you can be locked-up and questioned before you face a charge. In that time you might never be told what you are accused of, or be able to challenge the evidence against you. No one has been held for more than 14 days in the UK since the previous Government dropped its proposals for 42 days in October 2008. MPs will vote for renewal of 28 days tomorrow but the period of renewal being sought by Government is 6 months rather than the usual 1 year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberty has produced an introductory guide to RIPA, which is available here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/3-privacy/pdfs/ripa-powers.pdf  

20100713Today the Home Secretary gave further details about the review of counter-terrorism measures announced last month. The review will consider control orders, section 44 stop and search, pre-charge detention and targeted surveillance powers.Liberty welcomes demise of section 44 stop and search after long fight through CourtsThis widely discredited power, that allowed blanket stop and search without any suspicion of terrorism, was designated in secret by senior police officers and past Home Secretaries often on a rolling basis across whole counties of England and Wales.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty welcomed the Home Secretary’s decision:

"Liberty welcomes the end of the infamous s.44 stop and search power that criminalised and alienated more people than it ever protected. We argued against it for ten years and spent the last seven challenging it all the way to the Court of Human Rights.

It is a blanket and secretive power that has been used against school kids, journalists, peace protesters and a disproportionate number of young black men. To our knowledge, it has never helped catch a single terrorist. This is a very important day for personal privacy, protest rights and race equality in Britain."

In January of this year a seven year Liberty legal challenge (Gillan and Quinton V the United Kingdom) resulted in the Court of Human Rights ruling that section 44 violates the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights.

The case arose from an arms fair in the Docklands area of East London in September 2003 where journalists and peace protestors were subject to lengthy stop and search and prevented from attending a demonstration. Liberty’s challenge revealed that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion on a rolling basis since 2001.

Prior to the General Election, the previous Government made a last ditch appeal to the Grand Chamber of the Court of Human Rights which was roundly refused. Continued use of the power would only have left both the public and police under confusion about a law that was ripe for misuse and further legal challenges.


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

Notes to Editors

1) Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows “areas” (not defined) to be designated for stop and search without suspicion by a police constable. Designation is by an Assistant Chief Constable (subsequently endorsed by the Home Secretary). Designations may be made in secret and no judicial or parliamentary involvement is required. Designations last 28 days but have been made on a rolling basis for years at a time. Whole police areas may be designated and during the height of the Iraq War, these included several counties of England and Wales. The test for designation is not “necessity” but mere “expedience”.

2) The power has frequently been used against peaceful protestors including the octogenarian holocaust survivor Walter Wolfgang who was unlawfully ejected from the Labour Party conference in 2005 after heckling the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

3) The statistics on the use of this power demonstrate as few as 0.6 per cent of stop and searches in 2007/8 resulted in an arrest and that if you are black or Asian you are between 5 and 7 times more likely to be stopped under section 44. The Court noted (paragraph 85 of the judgment), the disproportionate number of black and Asian people that have been stopped.

20100708The Home Secretary today announced the suspension of the broad stop and search powers found in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.Intelligence services commissioner to lead torture inquiryThese concerns go back a number of years and relate to the treatment of people held at various times by the CIA (or with CIA involvement) in Guantanamo Bay or in third countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Morocco. A number of legal cases on both sides of the Atlantic now show that British Government Departments and Security Services co-operated in the detention and questioning of suspects who were tortured elsewhere.

A combination of protracted litigation (defended tooth and nail by the previous Government) and embarrassing newspaper revelations have reduced public trust and security service morale – a situation unworthy of a mature democracy true to its values and united against security threats. Some securocrats and politicians have even attempted to blame the human rights lawyers and journalists who uncovered the scandal rather than serious breaches of law and decency.

Whilst Liberty has spent nearly five years calling for a public inquiry into this shaming and counter-productive episode, today’s Prime Ministerial statement leaves room for considerable anxiety about the adequacy of the new Government’s proposed model.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“An inquiry into British complicity in torture is welcome and overdue but this announcement leaves room for fears that Government is bending towards the Security establishment. They wouldn’t be in this mess but for all the excuses for secret stitch-ups instead of open justice. This inquiry can only be credible with the broadest remit, the most public proceedings possible and by full engagement with victims, witnesses and lawyers. Any attempt to exempt intelligence from legal scrutiny is an attempt to exempt the security services from the rule of law.”

- The inquiry is to be chaired by Sir Peter Gibson. Whilst a former senior judge, his continuing role as Intelligence Services Commissioner since 2006 (not due to end until 2012) will hardly give torture victims and the wider public the sense of a fresh pair of eyes on a sore that has festered in the shadows for so long. He has already been responsible for security service scrutiny for a number of years.

- There is still a lack of clarity about the Inquiry’s remit and powers to require witnesses, including former Ministers, to attend and submit to questioning. Concerns about the cost and length of a judicial inquiry no doubt stem from the recent Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday. However that experience was the direct result of an inadequate Widgery Report so many years ago. Any attempts to comfort the Security Services with gentle and narrow scrutiny now, will only lead to further and protracted litigation well into the future.

- Arguments that a judicial inquiry would interfere with civil proceedings do not stand up to legal scrutiny. There are no juries in these civil claims and the Government cannot expect to be protected from any new evidence that emerges in a public inquiry. As for outstanding criminal investigations – to the best of our knowledge, no arrests have ever been made or charges brought. Liberty first asked the police to investigate in November 2005. Unusually, in October 2008 the last Government asked the former Attorney General to look into the allegations made in relation to Binyam Mohamed and she in turn referred the allegations to the Metropolitan Police in March 2009. The public interest into such grave matters cannot be postponed indefinitely whilst various authorities talk to themselves with no end in sight.

- Suggestions that a Green Paper next year might pave the way for legislation barring the British courts from looking at foreign intelligence are a grave cause for concern.


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


1. Amongst other comments in his various reports into security matters, Sir Peter Gibson has expressed year-on-year support for the renewal of the control order regime (allowing indefinite punishment without charge or trial for terror suspects) so much criticised by the senior judiciary and coalition parties in opposition.

2. The other two panel members are Janet Paraskeva DBE (former Civil Service Commissioner) and Peter Riddell (formerly of the Times newspaper).

3. Timeline of events:

· 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.

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

· 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. In response to Liberty’s request to the police, Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Michael Todd confirmed on 19 December 2005 that he would look into “extraordinary rendition” flights on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO.)

· 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.

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

· 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.

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

· On 21 February 2008, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted that two US extraordinary rendition flights refuelled on Diego Garcia in 2002.

· In May 2008, in order to assist his defence against terrorism charges in the US, Binyam Mohamed made an application to the High Court requesting the UK government to disclose documents provided to it by the US government which gave details of his treatment by the US authorities. Mr Mohamed alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in US custody, consisting of genital mutilation, deprivation of sleep and food, being held in stress positions for days at a time, and being forced to listen to loud music and screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch black cell, all while being forced to implicate himself and others in terrorist plots against the US.

o The High Court ruled that Mr Mohamed was entitled to the documents because they concerned wrongdoing by a third party in which the UK government had been involved. Binyam Mohamed's treatment occurred at a time when the UK intelligence services had been involved in questioning him. The UK government then issued "public interest immunity" (PII) certificates claiming that disclosure of the documents, and seven paragraphs of the High Court's judgment which summarised them, would not be in the public interest. Mr Mohamed challenged this assessment and the matter was considered by the High Court.

o Binyam Mohamed subsequently obtained the documents from the US authorities and charges against him in the US were ultimately dropped. However the UK government continued to resist publication of the 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment because it claimed that it would breach the diplomatic rule that intelligence provided by one government to another should not be disclosed without the consent of the government which provided it ("the control principle"). It was said that the consequence of this was that the Bush administration would reduce its co-operation with the UK intelligence services.

o The High Court accepted the UK government's concerns and decided not to publish the seven paragraphs.Subsequently the High Court agreed to reopen the case after it materialised that the Obama administration may not adopt the same stance as the Bush administration had done. The Court ruled that there was no proper basis for the UK government's assertion that the US government would react in the way that was claimed. It therefore ruled that the seven paragraphs should be published. The UK government appealed this decision and as a result the publication of the seven paragraphs was postponed pending the appeal.

o Meanwhile a US court ruled in an application for habeas corpus by a Guantanamo Bay detainee that Binyam Mohamed had been treated in the way he alleged (i.e. as summarised in the seven paragraphs). Despite this the UK government continued to argue that the seven paragraphs should not be published.

o The Court of Appeal decided on 10 February 2010 that the seven paragraphs should be published. On receiving the embargoed draft judgment of the Court of Appeal, the government’s counsel made the unusual request in a letter to the Master of the Rolls to delete one paragraph of his judgment. On 26 February 2010 after receiving further submissions on the issue, the Master of the Rolls rejected the government’s request and published the disputed paragraph with only minor alterations. The 7 missing paragraphs from original High Court ruling summarise the UK authorities' knowledge of Binyam Mohammed's torture whilst in US custody and read as follows:

(IV) It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer

(V) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

(VI) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and “disappearing” were played upon.

(VII) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled during his interviews;

(VIII) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

(IX) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provided to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

(X) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of BM by the United States authorities.

o Prior to these developments in the case of Binyam Mohamed, on the 23 October 2008 the then Home Secretary, Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP, ‘referred’ the issue of criminal wrongdoing in the case of Binyam Mohamed to the then Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland. On 26 March 2009 the Attorney-General ‘invited’ the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police to commence an investigation into the allegations made in relation to Binyam Mohamed. There have been no further public announcements about this police investigation.

· In separate litigation, Binyam Mohamed, Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil el Banna, Richard Belmar, Omar Deghayes and Martin Mubanga (all former Guantanamo Bay detainees) have brought civil claims for damages against the UK government for involvement in their ill treatment and unlawful detention by the US authorities. The previous government asked the High Court to adopt a “closed material procedure” which would involve the claimants and their lawyers being excluded from the hearing of the case, and the issuing of a “closed judgment” which they would not be entitled to see. On 18 November 2009 the High Court ruled that it had the power to adopt such a procedure. The claimants appealed that ruling. On 4 May 2010 the Court of Appeal ruled that Court would not adopt the ‘secret procedure’. Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, said that: “We should say firmly and unambiguously that it is not open to a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory power to do so or (arguably) agreement between the parties … to order a closed material procedure in relation to the trial of an ordinary civil claim… The primary reason for our conclusion is that, by acceding to the defendants’ argument, the court, while purportedly developing the common law, would in fact be undermining one of its most fundamental principles. A litigant’s right to know the case against him and to know the reasons why he has lost or won is fundamental to the notion of a fair trial.”

20100706The Prime Minister today announced an inquiry into concerns about collusion in torture by the British authorities during the War on Terror. He also announced the publication of guidance to the intelligence services on the interrogation and treatment of detainees held overseas.UK torture inquiry terms agreedReports indicated yesterday that Prime Minister David Cameron and Foreign Secretary had agreed the details of how it will be conducted.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Liberty has long called for a Public Inquiry into complicity in torture during the War on Terror. This investigation must be independent, judge-led and have broad powers to call evidence and make as much as possible publicly available. Only this kind of Inquiry can end the slow bleed of embarrassing revelation and expensive litigation and draw a line under this shameful business once and for all.”

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, transited UK airports.
 
Contact: the press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. 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, counselling or procuring torture anywhere in the world or conspiring to do so are also offences under British law.

2. Timeline of Torture allegations

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.

Liberty alerted the then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in November 2005 of its fears that the UK is in breach of domestic and international law by allowing CIA “extraordinary rendition” flights to land and re-fuel in Britain. A dossier of Liberty’s ongoing correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is available here.

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. In response to Liberty’s request to the police, Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Michael Todd confirmed on 19 December 2005 that he would look into “extraordinary rendition” flights on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO.)

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.

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

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.

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

On 21 February 2008, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted that two US extraordinary rendition flights refuelled on Diego Garcia in 2002.

In May 2008, in order to assist his defence against terrorism charges in the US, Binyam Mohamed made an application to the High Court requesting the UK government to disclose documents provided to it by the US government which gave details of his treatment by the US authorities. Mr Mohamed alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in US custody, consisting of genital mutilation, deprivation of sleep and food, being held in stress positions for days at a time, and being forced to listen to loud music and screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch black cell, all while being forced to implicate himself and others in terrorist plots against the US.

The High Court ruled that Mr Mohamed was entitled to the documents because they concerned wrongdoing by a third party in which the UK government had been involved. Binyam Mohamed's treatment occurred at a time when the UK intelligence services had been involved in questioning him. The UK government then issued "public interest immunity" (PII) certificates claiming that disclosure of the documents, and seven paragraphs of the High Court's judgment which summarised them, would not be in the public interest. Mr Mohamed challenged this assessment and the matter was considered by the High Court.

Binyam Mohamed subsequently obtained the documents from the US authorities and charges against him in the US were ultimately dropped. However the UK government continued to resist publication of the 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment because it claimed that it would breach the diplomatic rule that intelligence provided by one government to another should not be disclosed without the consent of the government which provided it ("the control principle"). It was said that the consequence of this was that the Bush administration would reduce its co-operation with the UK intelligence services.

The High Court accepted the UK government's concerns and decided not to publish the seven paragraphs.

Subsequently the High Court agreed to reopen the case after it materialised that the Obama administration may not adopt the same stance as the Bush administration had done. The Court ruled that there was no proper basis for the UK government's assertion that the US government would react in the way that was claimed. It therefore ruled that the seven paragraphs should be published. The UK government appealed this decision and as a result the publication of the seven paragraphs was postponed pending the appeal.

Meanwhile a US court ruled in an application for habeas corpus by a Guantanamo Bay detainee that Binyam Mohamed had been treated in the way he alleged (i.e. as summarised in the seven paragraphs). Despite this the UK government continued to argue that the seven paragraphs should not be published. The Court of Appeal decided on 10 February 2010 that the seven paragraphs should be published.

On receiving the embargoed draft judgment of the Court of Appeal, the government’s counsel made the unusual request in a letter to the Master of the Rolls to delete one paragraph of his judgment. On 26 February 2010 after receiving further submissions on the issue, the Master of the Rolls rejected the government’s request and published the disputed paragraph with only minor alterations.

In separate litigation, Binyam Mohamed and a number of other former Guantanamo Bay detainees brought civil claims for damages against the UK government for involvement in their ill treatment and unlawful detention by the US authorities. The government asked the High Court to adopt a “closed material procedure” which would involve the claimants and their lawyers being excluded from the hearing of the case, and the issuing of a “closed judgment” which they would not be entitled to see.

On 18 November 2009 the High Court ruled that it had the power to adopt such a procedure. The claimants appealed that ruling.

On 4 May 2010 the Court of Appeal ruled that Court would not adopt the ‘secret procedure’.

20100630The Government is expected to announce a judge-led inquiry into allegations of British complicity in the torture of terror suspects held overseas. Court of Human Rights rejects UK Government appeal over Section 44 stop and search powersIn January 2010, the Court ruled in the case of Gillan and Quinton v the United Kingdom that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (the broad police power for stop and search without suspicion) violated the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights. In April 2010 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court but this has now been refused, making the January judgment final.

Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty said:

“This appeal was always doomed. The objectionable policy of broad stop and search without suspicion was wrong in principle and has proven divisive and counterproductive in practice. The Great Repeal Bill promised by the new Government provides the perfect opportunity for the UK finally to comply with this common sense judgment.”

The case arose from an arms fair in the Docklands area of East London in September 2003 where Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan (amongst many other journalists and peace protestors) were subject to a lengthy stop and search and prevented from attending a demonstration. After public consternation and parliamentary questions, it emerged that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion on a rolling basis since 2001.

Contact Liberty's press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128


Notes to Editors

1) Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows “areas” (not defined) to be designated for stop and search without suspicion by a police constable. Designation is by an Assistant Chief Constable (subsequently endorsed by the Home Secretary). Designations may be made in secret and no judicial or parliamentary involvement is required. Designations last 28 days but have been made on a rolling basis for years at a time. Whole police areas may be designated and during the height of the Iraq War, these included several counties of England and Wales. The test for designation is not “necessity” but mere “expedience”.

2) The power has frequently been used against peaceful protestors including the octogenarian holocaust survivor Walter Wolfgang who was unlawfully ejected from the Labour Party conference in 2005 after heckling the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

3) The statistics on the use of this power demonstrate as few as 0.6 per cent of stop and searches in 2007/8 resulted in an arrest and that if you are black or asian you are between 5 and 7 times more likely to be stopped under section 44. In its January 2010 judgment the European Court of Human Rights noted (paragraph 85 of the judgment) the disproportionate number of black and asian people that have been stopped. Following the January judgment Liberty suggested amendments to the section 44 power during the passage of the Crime and Security Act. These amendments, while ultimately unsuccessful, were tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Liberty will be urging that these amendments are now included in the Great Repeal Bill. They would:

- Require that a section 44 authorisation is only given if either events to be held in a specific area; the nature of a place; or specific information received mean that the person giving the authorisation reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent acts of terrorism.

- Require that authorisations for an area or place are no larger than is reasonably necessary to enable a constable to effectively respond to a terrorism threat and is no more than one square kilometre in total.

- Require that authorisations can be made only by a chief officer of police.

- Require that authorisations do not last longer than is reasonably necessary and must not exceed 24 hours.

- Require that authorisations are not renewed for the same area within 7 days unless renewed in writing by the Secretary of State.

- Require that if the Secretary of State renews an authorisation on six or more occasions he or she must lay a copy of the renewed authorisation before both Houses of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.

- Require that notice of an authorisation must be published as soon as reasonably practicable and not later than 7 days after the authorisation is given.


20100630Today the European Court of Human Rights confirmed it has rejected the British government’s final appeal over section 44 stop and search powers.An end to lengthy pre-charge detention and control orders?During this period there will be a wide-ranging review of counter-terrorism measures, including whether holding someone for 28 days without charge is excessive. The UK’s current pre-charge detention limit is the longest in the western world.

The review will also include the unsafe and unfair control order regime, which Liberty has campaigned against since it was introduced in 2005. Liberty also expects it to consider reform of Section 44 stop and search, admission of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings and overbroad speech offences.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

"Six months in Whitehall passes a lot quicker than 28 days in a police cell without knowing why. The Coalition has bound itself together with the language of civil liberties. Now it must reduce the longest pre-charge detention period of any western democracy. A wide review of counterproductive counter-terror laws is welcome. At its conclusion, we also expect an end to the scandal of punishment without trial under control orders."

Pre-charge detention refers to the length of time you can be locked-up and questioned before you face a charge. In that time you might never be told what you are accused of, or be able to challenge the evidence against you. The Liberal Democrats had a 2010 manifesto pledge to “reduce the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 14 days”. No one has been held for more than 14 days in the UK since the previous Government dropped its proposals for 42 days in October 2008.

Control orders allow suspects to be indefinitely tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others without police interview, charge or trial. 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.

Journalists contact: Liberty’s press office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128


NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. MPs need to vote every year for the 28 day period to be maintained. If they don’t the period reverts to 14 days. Parliament must vote before 25th July if they want to renew 28 days

2. The UK has the longest pre-charge detention limit in the western world. Comparative pre-charge detention limits are:

UK – 28 days
USA – 2 days
Germany – 2 days
Italy – 4 days
Russia – 5 days
Spain – 5 days for terror related offences
France – 6 days

See our comparative bar chart.

3. Operation Overt – the investigation into the ‘liquid bomb’ plot has been cited as one of the most complex counter-terrorism investigations in British history and was presented by the previous Government as evidence in support of a further extension of pre-charge detention. During that investigation in 2006, 24 people were arrested and five suspects were held for 27 to 28 days. Three men were released without charge or further suspicion and two were charged with terrorism offences. Liberty understands from a lawyer working on the case that the evidence used to charge the two men was, in fact, obtained by the police within four and 12 days. Further, none of the evidence relied upon was either encrypted, required forensic analysis or contingent upon foreign intelligence.

4. Control orders were brought in by the previous Government under the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act after the Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention without charge for foreign terror suspects in Belmarsh prison violated their human rights. Control orders (applicable to British and non-nationals alike) severely restrict who a person can meet, where they can go and all cases have involved electronic tagging. Restrictions 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.

5. In addition to the pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects and control orders, Liberty would expect the counter-terrorism review to consider:

- Reform of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allows for stop and search without suspicion. This power was found to be unlawful in the Court of Human Rights in January 2010 and is now in urgent need of amendment.

- Allowing the admissibility of intercept in criminal proceedings. We are unique in the world in not allowing intercept material to be made admissible in criminal trials. This seriously hampers our ability to prosecute and has led to the creation of a parallel justice system.
- Repeal of the offence of ‘encouragement of terrorism’ contained in the Terrorism Act 2006.

- Reform of Schedules 7 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allow immigration officers, customs officers and police to question, detain and take DNA from anyone entering or leaving the UK whether or not they have grounds for suspicion.

- Reform of a number of overbroad ‘lower order’ terrorism offences including sections 58 and 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 which have been used to stop journalists, tourists and others taking photographs in public places.

- Tightening up the definition of ‘terrorism’ also in the Terrorism Act 2000. As almost all of the ‘lower order’ terrorism offences are linked to this overbroad definition – many already broad offences are even wider in scope, scooping the innocent up with the guilty.


20100624Today the Home Secretary announced that the Government would seek to renew the 28 day pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects for six months.
Judicial review of Jon Gaunt’s free speech challenge to Ofcom beginsShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Too many people say – my speech is free but yours is more expensive. Love him or hate him, Jon Gaunt’s case is a vital defence of everyone’s political speech under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. None of us should take this freedom for granted.”

Jon Gaunt said:

“British people have fought tooth and nail over the centuries since Magna Carta to defend and protect the right to free speech. Our forefathers fought the Nazis in the 20th century to protect such rights. It would be painfully ironic if use of the word ‘Nazi’ were to defeat us when the real Nazis couldn’t.”

Martin Howe, Jon Gaunt’s solicitor, said:

“A free press and media is an essential and fundamental ingredient of meaningful democracy. Broadcasters should be free to test our elected politicians on matters such as expenses, front-line cuts, terror policies, the prosecution of wars etc. In Jon Gaunt’s case he should be free to challenge a controversial childcare policy. Presenters in political debate should not be looking over their shoulder waiting for the Ofcom gag to be slapped on. Tyranny triumphs when good men are silenced. Our democracy has more to fear from faceless bureaucrats thumbing their thesaurus than from the plain speaking polemic of Jon Gaunt”.

Jon Gaunt was sacked from TALKsport on 19 November 2008, 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.

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. In November 2008, Redbridge Council announced a policy prohibiting smokers (even those who smoked outside the home) from fostering or adopting children. Councillor Michael Stark defended the policy and was invited onto Jon Gaunt’s talkSPORT radio show on 7 November 2008. As a former foster child himself, Gaunt expressed the view that it was more important for children to have a good parent than a non-smoking parent. In the heated debate that followed, Gaunt referred to Councillor Stark as a “health Nazi”, a “Nazi” and an “ignorant pig”. Gaunt offered an apology for the comments; however a few days later the management at talkSPORT sacked him.

2. On 27 January 2010, in the High Court, Jon Gaunt won the right to challenge the Ofcom finding on the basis that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
20100614Today the judicial review hearing of Ofcom’s decision to uphold complaints against the radio talk show host Jon Gaunt begins in the High Court. Liberty, the human rights group, has intervened in the case because of its wider importance to free speech.Liberty renews calls for urgent overhaul as thousands are illegally stopped and searchedIt uncovered 40 cases between 2001 and 2008 where police forces across England and Wales have misapplied the legislation.

Errors included 35 occasions of forces asking for authorisations lasting longer than the maximum 28 days permitted under the law and a 2004 Metropolitan police operation in which 840 people were stopped even though the police did not get authorisation from a Government minister within 48 hours.

Corinna Ferguson, Liberty lawyer who acted in the successful challenge to section 44 in the Court of Human Rights, said:

“We are grateful to the Government for making these blunders public but they merely highlight the ongoing dangers of secret stop and search authorisations. This is one of many objections to a power that has been found unlawful in the Court of Human Rights and has been more of a hindrance than a help to anti-terror policing.”

Section 44 powers allow police officers to stop and search anyone in a designated area without any ‘reasonable suspicion’. In January 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 violates the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights.

Contact Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

1) Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows “areas” (not defined) to be designated for stop and search without suspicion by a police constable. Designation is by an Assistant Chief Constable (subsequently endorsed by the Home Secretary). Designations may be made in secret and no judicial or parliamentary involvement is required. Designations last 28 days but have been made on a rolling basis for years at a time. Whole police areas may be designated and during the height of the Iraq War, these included several counties of England and Wales. The test for designation is not “necessity” but mere “expedience”.

2) The power has frequently been used against peaceful protestors including the octogenarian holocaust survivor Walter Wolfgang who was unlawfully ejected from the Labour Party conference in 2005 after heckling the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

3) The statistics on the use of this power demonstrate as few as 0.6 per cent of stop and searches in 2007/8 resulted in an arrest and that if you are black or asian you are between 5 and 7 times more likely to be stopped under section 44. The Court noted (paragraph 85 of the judgment), the disproportionate number of black and asian people that have been stopped. Liberty will be suggesting urgent amendments to section 44 during the passage of the Crime and Security Bill (before Parliament in the next few weeks). These would:

- Require that a section 44 authorization is only given if either
events to be held in a specific area; the nature of a place; or
specific information received mean that the person giving the authorization reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent acts of terrorism.
- Require that authorizations for an area or place are no larger than is reasonably necessary to enable a constable to effectively respond to a terrorism threat and is no more than one square kilometre in total.
- Require that authorizations can be made only by a chief officer of police.
- Require that authorizations do not last longer than is reasonably necessary and must not exceed 24 hours.
- Require that authorizations are not renewed for the same area within 7 days unless renewed in writing by the Secretary of State.
- Require that if the Secretary of State renews an authorization on six or more occasions he or she must lay a copy of the renewed authorization before both Houses of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.
- Require that notice of an authorization must be published as soon as reasonably practicable and not later than 7 days after the authorization is given.
20100610An internal review by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism revealed that thousands of people have been illegally stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.Justice for victim of modern-day slaveryPatience Asuquo told Snaresbrook Crown Court that she had suffered threats and violence at the hands of her employer who withheld her passport and wages. Despite managing to escape and complain to police, little was done to investigate her case until Liberty brought legal proceedings under the Human Rights Act.

The employer was convicted of assault and given a twelve-month conditional discharge. She was also ordered to pay £750 towards prosecution costs and £400 in compensation to Ms Asuquo.

As a result of Ms Asuquo’s case, Liberty identified the need to outlaw modern day slavery with the creation of a new serious offence attracting a maximum sentence of fourteen years imprisonment. In October of last year Baroness Young of Hornsey, an independent Crossbench peer, took an amendment through the House of Lords which created the offence of holding another person in slavery or servitude or requiring another person to perform forced or compulsory labour.

Corinna Ferguson, legal officer for Liberty, said:

“This case would never have reached the courtroom if it were not for Patience’s extraordinary courage and the protections of the Human Rights Act which forced the police to reopen the investigation. I hope today’s conviction marks a turning point in the way that vulnerable victims of forced labour are treated in the UK.”

Patience Asuquo, Liberty’s client, said:

“It has been very stressful but I put my trust in God. I feel so grateful that justice has finally been done.”

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, provides that “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude”, or “be required to perform forced or compulsory labour”.

Contact the press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Court heard the following details about the background leading to the assault in August 2007:

· Ms Asuquo came to the UK from Nigeria in December 2004, aged 22, to work as a domestic servant for a solicitor practising in London.

· She worked for her employer for almost 3 years, during which time she was regularly subjected to verbal and physical abuse and was paid only £2,155 over the entire period. Her passport was held by her employer whose husband told her that she had to stay in the job for 4 years in order to remain in the UK.

· Following an assault in August 2007 Ms Asuquo escaped the household with the help of a neighbour and reported the matter to the police.

2. Following an initial investigation the police informed Ms Asuquo in October 2008 that the investigation was closed.

3. Liberty issued judicial review proceedings against the Metropolitan Police in January 2009. The Metropolitan police accepted that their failure to pursue the matter had breached Article 4 of the Human Rights Act and they agreed to reopen the investigation.

4. The employer was subsequently arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and theft of Ms Asuquo’s passport.

5. The trial took place at Snaresbrook Crown Court from 25-28 May 2010. On the 28th May the jury returned a verdict of common assault. In giving the sentence of the Court HHJ Khyatt QC said he was imposing a relatively lenient sentence in part because the employer was likely to face sanctions from the Law Society.

6. Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which came into force on April 2010, creates the offence of holding another person in slavery or servitude or requiring another person to perform forced or compulsory labour.

20100528Liberty today welcomed a jury’s decision to convict the employer of a Liberty client who had been subjected to forced domestic labour for over two and half years.ID Cards to be scrapped – but must be scrapped for allHowever, the new Bill will only apply to British nationals – ID cards were made compulsory for foreign nationals in 2008.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Liberty thanks the Government for the Bonfire of the ID cards and the junking of the National Identity Register. We have spent many years arguing that this grand folly would cost our freedom, privacy and race relations dearly and the public agreed.

We hope that scrapping ID cards for foreign nationals will soon follow. Passports and visas are appropriate for immigration control – ID cards are even more divisive when only one group in society is required to hold them.”

The hugely expensive ID card scheme was unsuccessfully touted by the former Government as a solution to identity theft, benefit fraud, crime, and terrorism.

Journalists contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. Compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals have been rolled out in stages since November 2008. The first categories of people required to have an ID card were foreign students and foreign spouses, partners and dependents of UK nationals. As of March 2009, retired people, those on UK ancestry visas, academic visitors, domestic workers and others have also been required to obtain an ID card. Sections 5-15 of the UK Borders Act 2007 apply to biometric registration for foreign nationals. This gives a power to the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring a person to apply for, or use, a document recording biometric information. The Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/3048) set out the detail of what is required. This legislation will need amendment to scrap ID cards for foreign nationals.

2. ID Cards Timeline

2001: as Home Secretary, David Blunkett puts forward the idea of compulsory ID cards

2002: White paper published on ID cards

April 2004: Draft ID Card Bill published for consultation

March 2005: Second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons just before the General Election

May 2005: ID card scheme introduced to Parliament

March 2006: Identity Cards Act receives royal assent

Nov 2008: ID cards start to become compulsory for foreign nationals
2009: cards were due to become compulsory for airside workers but plans were scaled back amid protests from the airline pilots union BALPA – cards are currently required for airside workers at Manchester Airport and London City Airport.

April 2009: David Blunkett expresses doubts about the scheme. Also in 2009 a voluntary scheme is launched in the North West.

Jan 2010: young people in London aged 16 – 24 are able to voluntarily apply for a card

Late 2010: cards were to become available voluntarily to the general public

2011: all new passports were to be entered on the National Identity Register either through ID cards or biometric passports.

2017: the Home Office intended to roll out compulsory ID cards throughout Britain


20100527Liberty today welcomed the new Government’s Identity Documents Bill which will repeal the much criticised ID Cards Act. The organisation has campaigned against ID cards since they were first suggested by then Home Secretary David Blunkett in 2001.A Queen's Speech in new liberty language?In particular, the organisation has long campaigned against Identity Cards and the National Identity Register and welcomes the advent of a “Great Repeal Bill” instead of the usual diet of extra police powers and criminal offences that we are often fed by a new Parliament. Alongside the reform of the DNA database and other sensitive databases, regulation of surveillance and measures to restore peaceful protest Liberty would like to see the Great Repeal Bill include the following:

The early repeal of the unsafe and unfair “control order” regime that provides indefinite punishment without trial (house arrest etc) for terror suspects on the basis of secret intelligence instead of charges, evidence and proof. This regime was fought by both coalition parties in opposition. Whilst this regime is renewed by Parliament annually, neither the Conservatives nor Liberal Democrats have voted for renewal for the last three years.

Reversal of in-roads into the right to jury trial created by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

A reform of Britain’s “summary extradition” arrangements with the US, EU and a number of other countries. No one should be sent from Britain to face charges abroad if it would be fairer to deal with them here and without a basic case to answer being shown in a British court. The injustice caused by “instant extradition” has been most recently highlighted by the heart-rending case of Gary McKinnon. Until the law is changed to put discretion and compassion at the heart of the system, the only hope for people like Gary is under the Human Rights Act.

Legal prohibition to guarantee the promise in the Programme for Government that children will no longer be held in immigration detention.

On a more worrying note, Liberty will look closely at the detail of draft legislation on police and parliamentary reform to ensure that operational police independence and the ability of Parliament to hold Government to account, is not compromised.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“After years of sweeping police powers, criminal offences and constant attacks on our rights and freedoms, the new liberty language of this Queen’s speech will be music to many ears. But in claiming this territory, the Coalition parties must expect even closer scrutiny. As always, Liberty will not flinch from holding the Government to its word.”

Contact: the press office on 020 7378 3656 or 0797 383 1128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. In December 2008 the European Court of Human Rights stated in the S and Marper v UK ruling that the UK’s policy of indefinite retention of DNA for unconvicted people is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. In response to this judgment, the Crime and Security Act 2010 reduced the retention period to 6 years for those arrested but not charged or convicted. Even as amended, our retention regime remains disproportionate – failing to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. Liberty also believes our current regime leaves the UK in breach of the Court judgment and the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. Although CCTV can be useful in detecting crime, the number of cameras throughout the UK has serious implications on the right to private life. Liberty also believes – as independent research confirms – that the benefits of CCTV have been exaggerated. Despite technological innovations and a huge increase in the quantity of CCTV, Parliament is yet to consider this issue, in particular the necessity of regulation.

3. Despite much talk of repeal, sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 - which dangerously undermine the right to protest in the vicinity of Parliament - remain on the statute book. Also in need of reform is Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (stop and search without suspicion) which has been used to clamp down on peaceful protesters. In January 2010, Liberty successfully challenged this power - and its use against protesters - in the European Court of Human Rights. The powers were found to be in breach of article 8 (private life) of the European Convention of Human Rights and are now in urgent need of amendment.

4. More information about Liberty’s ‘Unsafe, Unfair’ campaign against control orders can be found here.

5. Sections 43-48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows for the removal of juries in crown court trials.

6. More information about Liberty’s ‘Extradition Watch’ campaign can be found here.

7. In the immigration section of the Coalition agreement ‘ Programme for Government’, it states ‘ we will end the detention of children for immigration purposes’.

8. Liberty is concerned over proposals – made previously by both parties now in Government - for directly elected individuals or directly elected police authorities to be given responsibility for operational policing. We welcome a recent change in the language of this proposal – which is now rumoured to be introduced after the summer recess. We will be looking for further clarification that while democratic scrutiny might be exercised over police budgets this will not compromise operational independence.

9. Liberty is concerned that well-meaning plans to tie the PM’s hands with fixed term parliaments should not impede MPs’ ability to instigate a vote of no confidence in any serving Government of the day.


20100524Today Liberty responded optimistically to many of the proposals rumoured to be announced in tomorrow’s Queen’s Speech.New Government announces long awaited inquiry into allegations of British complicity in tortureLiberty, which has long called for an investigation, insists the inquiry must be led by a senior judge with no obvious connections to the security establishment and allow full access to all levels of classified material at home and abroad. The organisation emphasised that the inquiry’s remit must cover the wide range of allegations including use of UK airspace and territory and the extent of the security establishment’s knowledge of interrogations by third parties – and any findings must be presented openly and transparently.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“The slow drip of revelations about British complicity in torture has undermined trust, reputations and the morale of many decent public servants entrusted with our safety. Of course a country is judged by its mistakes, but in the end, even more so - by its ability to own up to them and start again.

This welcome inquiry must be open and broad and go all the way up to those with political responsibility for the most shameful part of the War on Terror.”

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, transited UK airports.

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

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. 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, counselling or procuring torture anywhere in the world or conspiring to do so are also offences under British law.

2. Timeline of Torture allegations

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.

Liberty alerted the then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in November 2005 of its fears that the UK is in breach of domestic and international law by allowing CIA “extraordinary rendition” flights to land and re-fuel in Britain. A dossier of Liberty’s ongoing correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is available on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk

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. In response to Liberty’s request to the police, Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Michael Todd confirmed on 19 December 2005 that he would look into “extraordinary rendition” flights on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO.)

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.

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

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.

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

On 21 February 2008, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted that two US extraordinary rendition flights refuelled on Diego Garcia in 2002.

In May 2008, in order to assist his defence against terrorism charges in the US, Binyam Mohamed made an application to the High Court requesting the UK government to disclose documents provided to it by the US government which gave details of his treatment by the US authorities. Mr Mohamed alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in US custody, consisting of genital mutilation, deprivation of sleep and food, being held in stress positions for days at a time, and being forced to listen to loud music and screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch black cell, all while being forced to implicate himself and others in terrorist plots against the US.

The High Court ruled that Mr Mohamed was entitled to the documents because they concerned wrongdoing by a third party in which the UK government had been involved. Binyam Mohamed's treatment occurred at a time when the UK intelligence services had been involved in questioning him. The UK government then issued "public interest immunity" (PII) certificates claiming that disclosure of the documents, and seven paragraphs of the High Court's judgment which summarised them, would not be in the public interest. Mr Mohamed challenged this assessment and the matter was considered by the High Court.

Binyam Mohamed subsequently obtained the documents from the US authorities and charges against him in the US were ultimately dropped. However the UK government continued to resist publication of the 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment because it claimed that it would breach the diplomatic rule that intelligence provided by one government to another should not be disclosed without the consent of the government which provided it ("the control principle"). It was said that the consequence of this was that the Bush administration would reduce its co-operation with the UK intelligence services.

The High Court accepted the UK government's concerns and decided not to publish the seven paragraphs.

Subsequently the High Court agreed to reopen the case after it materialised that the Obama administration may not adopt the same stance as the Bush administration had done. The Court ruled that there was no proper basis for the UK government's assertion that the US government would react in the way that was claimed. It therefore ruled that the seven paragraphs should be published. The UK government appealed this decision and as a result the publication of the seven paragraphs was postponed pending the appeal.

Meanwhile a US court ruled in an application for habeas corpus by a Guantanamo Bay detainee that Binyam Mohamed had been treated in the way he alleged (i.e. as summarised in the seven paragraphs). Despite this the UK government continued to argue that the seven paragraphs should not be published. The Court of Appeal decided on 10 February 2010 that the seven paragraphs should be published.

On receiving the embargoed draft judgment of the Court of Appeal, the government’s counsel made the unusual request in a letter to the Master of the Rolls to delete one paragraph of his judgment. On 26 February 2010 after receiving further submissions on the issue, the Master of the Rolls rejected the government’s request and published the disputed paragraph with only minor alterations.

In separate litigation, Binyam Mohamed and a number of other former Guantanamo Bay detainees brought civil claims for damages against the UK government for involvement in their ill treatment and unlawful detention by the US authorities. The government asked the High Court to adopt a “closed material procedure” which would involve the claimants and their lawyers being excluded from the hearing of the case, and the issuing of a “closed judgment” which they would not be entitled to see.

On 18 November 2009 the High Court ruled that it had the power to adopt such a procedure. The claimants appealed that ruling.

On 4 May 2010 the Court of Appeal ruled that Court would not adopt the ‘secret procedure’.

20100521Today human rights group Liberty welcomed the new Government’s hugely significant announcement of an inquiry into alleged British complicity in torture.
Liberty welcomes Court of Appeal judgment in favour of BA workers' right to strikeLiberty Legal Officer Corinna Ferguson said:

"Liberty welcomes this common sense judgment from the Court of Appeal in favour of British Airways staff. Trade Union ballots are there to protect employees, not to allow big business to play technical games in court. In difficult economic times, reasonable negotiation and the rights of ordinary people to come together are more important than ever."

Contact: Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

20100520Today the Court of Appeal overturned the injunction banning British Airways staff from striking.Liberty responds to Electoral Commission reportLiberty Legal Director James Welch said:

"This clear and prompt report highlights the disgraceful planning and resourcing for the General Election in a number of constituencies. We welcome the suggestion that the law should be clarified to make clear that people queuing at 10pm can still vote, but consider that this could have been achieved by applying human rights principles and common sense."

Journalists contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. The Electoral Commission report is available to read online - download PDF.

2. Were you turned away from the polling station? Liberty is investigating the chaos on election day, please help us by sharing your experience using this form (word doc) 

3. Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now part of our law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, requires that elections take place “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act public bodies, including returning officers, are required to act in a way that is compatible with people’s rights under the Act. Section 3 also requires that statutes and rules be interpreted and given effect in a way that respects these rights.


20100520On election day hundreds of people were left queuing outside polling stations across England. The Electoral Commission has today published a report following an investigation into the problems and the way they were handled.Terror case poses first test to new coalition on rights and freedomsAlthough the new Home Secretary has declined to appeal the ruling, the judgment and the continued existence of the inherited control order policy poses the first test to a new coalition that has so far wrapped itself in the language of civil liberties. The control order regime, put on the statute book in 2005, was originally opposed by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. However, the Liberal Democrats have in recent years consistently opposed the annual renewal of control orders in Parliament while the Conservatives have consistently abstained from the parliamentary vote.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"Terror suspects should face fair trials, not secret commissions. Convicted terrorists should be sent to secure prisons, not put on planes to face torture or make more trouble elsewhere.

Anyone who thinks that sending people to torture is a good idea has learned nothing from 'extraordinary rendition' and the counter-productive war on terror."

Liberty has long criticised the failure of control orders both as a method of controlling genuinely dangerous people and protecting innocent suspects. The human rights group urges the new coalition Government to move policy away from the war on terror and towards the rule of law.

Contact: Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

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 given the evidence against them.

20100518Today the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) ruled that two men allegedly involved in a terror plot could not be deported to Pakistan. Mr. Justice Mitting said that they could not be returned as Pakistan had ‘a long…history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained’.Liberty responds to reports of commission on Human Rights ActShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"A coalition that has attempted to tie itself together with the language of civil liberties cannot now renege on fundamental human rights.

Given the way in which Liberal Democrats all the way up to the Deputy Prime Minister vowed to defend our Human Rights Act, any attempt to dilute it would spell the end of this Coalition - and rightly so.

Governments like people are bound together with common values not vested interests. There is nothing more British than the free speech, fair trials, personal privacy and rule against torture protected by the HRA."


20100518Liberty response to reports by the BBC about the creation of a commission to look into the workings of the Human Rights Act.Liberty supports gay couple in B&B discrimination caseThe couple, who booked by email and paid a deposit, were turned away by the owners when they arrived at the B&B. Despite protestations from Mr Black that this could be unlawful discrimination, the owners refused to allow the couple to stay as it was 'against their convictions'.

James Welch, Legal Director of Liberty, said:

"This case is as important to the principle of non-discrimination as Rosa Parks' refusal to go to the back of the bus. A business with a "no gays policy" is as bad as one that says "no blacks; no Irish". Liberty defends the rights of religious groups to preach their beliefs, even when we disagree with them, but not to discriminate in the provision of goods and services."

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 made it unlawful for public authorities and other service providers to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. The Regulations include exceptions for religious organisations.

Contact: the press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128
20100514Liberty today confirmed that it is acting for Michael Black and John Morgan, the gay couple refused accommodation at a Berkshire Bed and Breakfast in March of this year.
Liberty response to formation of new GovernmentDirector of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti said:

"Liberty congratulates the new Government and in particular, the new Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor. We note the importance that both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have placed on civil liberties in their coalition talks and look forward to working with Government and Opposition to ensure that fundamental rights and freedoms are better protected in the new Parliament."

20100512Liberty comment as the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition cabinet is announced.Liberty responds to Lib-Con coalition agreementThe coalition’s agreement includes scrapping the ID card scheme and amending the DNA database model but is silent on the Human Rights Act and the unfair and unsafe control orders policy.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“We welcome the way that the new coalition has bound itself together with civil liberties. It is Liberty’s job to hold it to its word. We celebrate the end of ID cards.

Now the common values of the Human Rights Act must be proudly defended and the worst scandals of the War on Terror – punishment without trial and torture – must be investigated and halted.”

A more detailed analysis of the provisional Lib-Con agreement can be downloaded on the right hand side of the page.

Journalists contact Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

20100512Human rights organisation welcomes scrapping of ID card scheme but urges new Government to abandon control order regimeLiberty today welcomed the Lib-Con coalition’s proposals on civil liberties but urged the new Government to defend the Human Rights Act and remember both parties’ opposition to the control orders regime.Voting chaos: Liberty investigatesThe organisation is calling for people prevented from exercising their fundamental right to vote to contact Liberty with a view to further action.  

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said: 
 
“Shameful scenes of hundreds of voters turned away from polling stations are unworthy of a mature democracy like ours. This scandal must not be lost in all the current speculation about a new Government and the relevant authorities cannot be left to investigate themselves. 
 
Anyone who feels they were denied their fundamental right to vote should contact us urgently. Liberty will use all legal and campaigning means to ensure that this disgrace is never repeated. This is particularly pressing given the possibility of further elections in the medium term.” 
 
Journalists contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128 
 
1. Disenfranchised voters should download the questionnaire at www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk or call Liberty on 020 7403 3888. 
 
2. Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now part of our law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, requires that elections take place “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”  Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act public bodies, including returning officers, are required to act in a way that is compatible with people’s rights under the Act.  Section 3 also requires that statutes and rules be interpreted and given effect in a way that respects these rights.  

3. Liberty is particularly concerned about reports from the following areas: City of Chester, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Islington South and Finsbury, Birmingham Ladywood, Lewisham Deptford, Newcastle upon Tyne East, Newcastle upon Tyne North, Runnymede and Weybridge, Sheffield Hallam, Tyneside North, Liverpool Wavertree, Manchester Withington. 

20100507Liberty announced today that it is looking into allegations that hundreds of potential voters were disenfranchised amid chaos at polling stations around the country. 1000th prospective MP milestone for asylum pledgeShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“1000 parliamentary candidates have also said loud and proud that they respect the importance of refugee protection. This groundswell of compassion may shock some on the far-right but will never surprise those who believe in the fundamental fairness of British society.

Among the 1000 candidates who have made the asylum promise are the leaders of all three main political parties. Liberty will be watching closely from tomorrow to hold whichever party leads the Government to their pledge.”

The UK is a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which guarantees any person who is not safe in their own country the right to claim asylum elsewhere. The convention has saved millions of lives, and no country has ever withdrawn from it. The UK is home to less than 2% of the world’s refugees, out of 16 million worldwide, with 80% living in developing countries.

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

Notes to Editors

1. The full text of the Asylum Election Pledge is as follows:

'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.  Journalists can contact the press office for a copy of the full list of signatories.

3.  The top countries of origin for refugees coming to the UK in 2009 were: Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Sri Lanka, and Eritrea. The UK is home to less than 2% of the world’s refugees, with 80% living in developing countries. Europe gives protection to just 14%.




20100506Today Liberty announces the 1000th parliamentary candidate has signed up to the organisation’s asylum election pledge. By signing the pledge, which is promoted by Liberty, the Refugee Council and the Scottish Refugee Council, candidates agree to ‘never play fast and loose with the proud tradition of a nation that must always offer succour to those in genuine fear of persecution’.Binyam Mohamed: Torture and secrecy – Court of Appeal rules against Government againBinyam Mohamed and other former detainees have been seeking to sue the UK Government for complicity in torture and the Government had asked the Court to adopt a secret procedure for the hearing of the case. Under this procedure the claimants and their lawyers would be excluded from the hearing and from seeing the judgment in their case. Liberty, Justice and a number of media outlets intervened in this case to defend the principles of open justice under the common law.

Corinna Ferguson, legal officer at Liberty, said:

“Yet again, the Court of Appeal has sent the strongest signal to the security establishment that it cannot play fast and loose with the Rule of Law. Fair and open justice belongs to people not Governments. Whoever governs us from Friday would be wise to bear this in mind.”

Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, said that:

“We should say firmly and unambiguously that it is not open to a court in England and Wales, in the absence of statutory power to do so or (arguably) agreement between the parties … to order a closed material procedure in relation to the trial of an ordinary civil claim…

The primary reason for our conclusion is that, by acceding to the defendants’ argument, the court, while purportedly developing the common law, would in fact be undermining one of its most fundamental principles.”

“A litigant’s right to know the case against him and to know the reasons why he has lost or won is fundamental to the notion of a fair trial.”

In February the Court of Appeal ruled that seven paragraphs which gave details of Binyam Mohamed’s torture in US custody should be published. The Government had resisted publication of the paragraphs because it claimed that it would breach the diplomatic rule that intelligence provided by one government to another should not be disclosed without the consent of the government which provided it, even though a US court had already published the information.

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

Binyam Mohamed litigation:

· In May 2008, in order to assist his defence against terrorism charges in the US, Binyam Mohamed made an application to the High Court requesting the UK government to disclose documents provided to it by the US government which gave details of Mr Mohamed's treatment by the US authorities. Mr Mohamed alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in US custody, consisting of genital mutilation, deprivation of sleep and food, being held in stress positions for days at a time, and being forced to listen to loud music and screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch black cell, all while being forced to implicate himself and others in terrorist plots against the US.

· The High Court ruled that Mr Mohamed was entitled to the documents because they concerned wrongdoing by a third party in which the UK government had been involved. Binyam Mohamed's treatment occurred at a time when the UK intelligence services had been involved in questioning him.

· The UK government then issued "public interest immunity" (PII) certificates claiming that disclosure of the documents, and 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment which summarised them, would not be in the public interest. Mr Mohamed challenged this assessment and the matter was considered by the High Court.

· Binyam Mohamed subsequently obtained the documents from the US authorities and charges against him in the US were ultimately dropped. However the UK government continued to resist publication of the 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment because it claimed that it would breach the diplomatic rule that intelligence provided by one government to another should not be disclosed without the consent of the government which provided it ("the control principle"). It was said that the consequence of this was that the Bush administration would reduce its cooperation with the UK intelligence services.

· The High Court accepted the UK government's concerns and decided not to publish the 7 paragraphs.

· Subsequently the High Court agreed to reopen the case after it materialised that the Obama administration may not adopt the same stance as the Bush administration had done. The Court ruled that there was no proper basis for the UK government's assertion that the US government would react in the way that was claimed. It therefore ruled that the 7 paragraphs should be published.

· The UK government appealed this decision and as a result the publication of the 7 paragraphs was postponed pending the appeal.

· Meanwhile a US court ruled in an application for habeas corpus by a Guantanamo Bay detainee that Binyam Mohamed had been treated in the way he alleged (i.e. as summarised in the 7 paragraphs).

· Despite this the UK government continued to argue that the 7 paragraphs should not be published. The Court of Appeal decided on 10 February 2010 that the 7 paragraphs should be published.

· On receiving the embargoed draft judgment of the Court of Appeal, the government’s counsel made the unusual request in a letter to the Master of the Rolls to delete one paragraph of his judgment. On 26 February 2010 after receiving further submissions on the issue, the Master of the Rolls rejected the government’s request and published the disputed paragraph with only minor alterations.

· In separate litigation, Binyam Mohamed and a number of other former Guantanamo Bay detainees brought civil claims for damages against the UK government for their involvement in their ill treatment and unlawful detention by the US authorities.

· The government asked the high court to adopt a “closed material procedure” which would involve the claimants and their lawyers being excluded from the hearing of the case, and the issuing of a “closed judgment” which they would not be entitled to see.

· On 18 November 2009 the High Court ruled that it had the power to adopt such a procedure. The claimants appealed that ruling.

20100504Today, two months after the Court of Appeal’s explosive judgment concerning knowledge by the UK authorities of Binyam Mohamed’s torture in US custody, the Court has once again rejected a Government attempt to subvert open justice.Nearly £3,500 raised for Liberty's new home by marathon runners
Kate, who comes from a whole family of committed Liberty supporters, said she had taken up the challenge because she passionately believes in Liberty’s work.

Lee is Liberty’s Director of Development, and he is now fundraising for Liberty in his spare time as well as in his day job. He said: “I’m incredibly proud to work for Liberty – it’s a privilege working alongside such talented and committed colleagues and that makes asking my friends and family to sponsor me very easy indeed. Although it’s been tough to fit my training in at the weekends and evenings, it’s a small sacrifice at such an important moment both for the organisation and for rights and freedoms in the UK.”

Lee also ran the Brighton marathon on Sunday 18 April.

You can contribute towards our fund to move to a new building by donating online at www.justgiving.com/futureofliberty

If you’re interested in fundraising for Liberty with a run, a walk, or any other kind of event, please contact Liberty's Membership team by using our contact form or calling 020 7378 7663

20100426Lee Rodwell's fundraising page:
http://www.justgiving.com/Lee4Liberty

Kate Watkin's fundraising page: http://www.justgiving.com/kate-watkin
Two people have gone the extra mile to help us raise funds for a much-needed new office. Kate Watkin and Lee Rodwell ran 26.2 miles around the streets of London on Sunday 25 April and raised £3,367 for the Civil Liberties Trust.'There is no place for racism in modern British politics' Party leaders agree on importance of refugee protectionIn advance of the second prime ministerial debate (focusing on foreign policy), the party leaders have agreed to ‘never play fast and loose with the proud tradition of a nation that must always offer succour to those in genuine fear of persecution’.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“It is very good news that even in the heat of election battle, all three leaders have promised to honour the importance of refugee protection. No one should underestimate the ocean of common decency in Britain and we intend to hold our politicians to this proud tradition.”

Donna Covey, Chief Executive of the Refugee Council said:
 
“People seeking asylum have fled war, torture and persecution and come to the UK to seek safety. In this election, the right to asylum must be defended, so we are delighted the main party leaders have pledged to ensure a balanced debate on immigration and asylum policy, and to honour Britain’s history as a place of refuge for the persecuted.”

In addition to the main party leaders, scores of parliamentary candidates up and down the country have signed the pledge which will be open until May 6th. Elfyn Llwyd, parliamentary group leader of Plaid Cymru, and Alex Salmond, leader of SNP, have also signed the pledge.

The UK is a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which guarantees any person who is not safe in their own country the right to claim asylum elsewhere. The convention has saved millions of lives, and no country has ever withdrawn from it. The UK is home to less than 2% of the world’s refugees, out of 16 million worldwide, with 80% living in developing countries.

Liberty’s press office 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Refugee Council press office 020 7346 1214/1213 or 07956 636 219

Scottish Refugee Council press office 0141 223 7927
or 07734 030 763

Notes to Editors

1. The full text of the Asylum Election Pledge is as follows:

'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. Journalists please contact either press office for a copy of the full list of signatories.

Candidates who want to sign up can do so at both Liberty and the Refugee Council websites.

3 The top countries of origin for refugees coming to the UK in 2009 were: Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Sri Lanka, and Eritrea. The UK is home to less than 2% of the world’s refugees, with 80% living in developing countries. Europe gives protection to just 14%.

20100422Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders sign up to asylum election pledgeToday Liberty, the Refugee Council and the Scottish Refugee Council announced that Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and hundreds of other parliamentary candidates have signed up to the organisations’ asylum election pledge.DNA database debate – truth and illusionMark Dixie, convicted in 2008 for the murder of Sally Anne Bowman, was arrested nine months after the crime for his role in a pub brawl. It was this DNA swab that revealed his link to Sally Anne’s murder after it was uploaded to the national DNA database and matched with the unidentified crime scene DNA. Mark Dixie was then arrested, charged and prosecuted for Sally Anne’s rape and murder.
Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Election fever seems to be confusing the debate about DNA retention. It has been suggested that the tragic case of Sally Anne Bowman was only solved because her murderer was “an innocent” on the database. In fact, he was arrested for a separate violent offence and it was then that his DNA was matched to the crime scene.

We all agree that DNA taken on arrest should be checked against unsolved crimes - this is entirely different from stockpiling the DNA of innocent men, women and children for years on end.”

The decision in the S & Marper case and the implementation of the “Scottish model” in England and Wales would not prevent DNA that is taken on arrest being compared with unidentified crime scene DNA on the database as happened in the Dixie case. DNA could continue to be taken on arrest, uploaded on to the database while the investigation is ongoing before either being destroyed once an investigation has ceased or retained following a conviction. Comparing the DNA of someone who has been arrested for a violent or sexual offence with past crime scene DNA, is very different to the long term retention of the DNA of innocent people.

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128
20100409Today Liberty’s director responded to suggestions that the case of Sally Anne Bowman was only solved by holding the DNA of unconvicted individuals on the database. This could not be further from the truthLiberty response as Conservatives drop opposition to Crime and Security BillIsabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty, said: "We understand that half a loaf is better than no bread - leaving the current law on DNA retention completely unamended would put us in flagrant breach of the Court of Human Rights judgment.

"We look forward to a new Government of whatever colour going much further to protect the rights of innocent people who will continue to have their DNA stockpiled for years on end under this heavily compromised deal."

Contact Liberty's  Press Office on 020 7378 3656 or 0797 383 1128

Notes to Editors

1. In December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights found Britain’s DNA retention regime – under which millions of innocent profiles are held – to be a disproportionate interference with personal privacy rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.

2. Liberty agrees that a carefully managed 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 lives, 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 for these types of serious offence.

20100408Today the Tories dropped their opposition to the Crime and Security Bill, but pledged to amend the DNA database provisions it contains if they win the General Election.
Open letter from politicians and human rights groups calls for independent torture inquiryThe human rights groups and politicians have published their open letter in the Independent newspaper five days after Gordon Brown broke his promise to publish new procedures for British intelligence officers dealing with the torture and abuse of detainees held abroad.

Contact Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

1) The full text of the letter can be found here (PDF).

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.
20100322Liberty has joined forces with Amnesty International UK, Human Rights Watch, Reprieve and the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition to call for an independent inquiry into the UK’s involvement in torture.Liberty response to Foreign Office report on tortureShami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

"This annual FCO report is normally about exposing human rights abuses elsewhere rather than defending our own dubious record.

"The passage on complicity in torture makes fascinating reading. Once more the Government resists an argument that isn't being made. No-one ever said that Britain shouldn't talk to countries with less than perfect standards of behaviour. We merely ask that we set a good example and don't encourage or outsource torture in Britain's name."


20100318In a report released today the Foreign Office said that Britain must continue to work with international intelligence agencies in the fight against terrorism, including agencies in countries which abuse or torture detainees.
Liberty Director challenges security services’ dismissal of torture scandal exposure in lectureAn excerpt from the speech to be delivered this evening at Bristol University will say:

"Conspiracy theories can of course flow both ways. Accusing human rights lawyers of trying to 'destabilise the intelligence agencies' is as ridiculous as blaming journalists for the Parliamentary expenses scandal they exposed.

Are unfolding revelations and court judgments really to blame for draining the morale of the Security Services and making us less safe? Surely the harm and the danger must be traced to the torture itself.

Branding lawyers and judges as an enemy within is unbecoming of "well-placed Whitehall sources" who should have discarded the Dick Cheney play book by now."

The annual Policy and Politics lecture lecture, which is in its fifteenth year, was given in 2009 by Jonathan Evans - alumnus and Director General of MI5. Chakrabarti's lecture, entitled 'Common Values, Common Ground” will directly address criticism of lawyers and judges from the security services and others.

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

1 Jonathan Evans, Director General of MI5 wrote in a comment piece for the Daily Telegraph, February 11 2010 that “conspiracy theories aid the enemy” and that the publication of the seven redacted paragraphs in the Binyam Mohammed case could impact on the intelligence sharing arrangement with the United States

2. On the 18 March 2010, Kim Howells, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee said on the in a Commons debate on the Committee’s work "The agencies can rarely defend themselves publicly when attacked, they are a sitting target for anyone describing themselves as campaigning journalists, for certain, - and it pains me to say this - high-profile defence lawyers who appear to be not overly concerned with throwing mud at the agencies, presumably in the hope that it will influence the public mood in favour of their clients.

20100318In a speech at the old university of the Director General of MI5, Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, will hit back at the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and other critics of lawyers and campaigners who have exposed the torture scandal.Bryant inquest abandoned as new information about previous child sex offence revealedThe inquest heard that information about Rice’s sexual offending against children, which was believed to have been unavailable to the authorities prior to his release, had been known to agencies in Bradford. These agencies had refused to accept Rice's release into their area. It would seem that this important information was not then shared with agencies elsewhere who were involved in his eventual release.

In light of this revelation, the jury was today dismissed and the inquest abandoned. It is due to be reconvened with a fresh jury in January 2011 and will run for seven weeks.

Emma Norton, legal officer for Liberty and representing Verna Bryant said:

‘Four and a half years after the murder of Naomi Bryant, the full and true extent of what the authorities did and did not know about Anthony Rice is only now slowly coming to light. New information received overnight has made the abandonment of the inquest sadly unavoidable, but it is of paramount importance that no stone be left unturned in the inquiry into Naomi’s death.

Although we are disappointed that almost another year will pass before this inquest will be concluded, it is vital that all questions are answered and all lessons learned.”

At the time of Naomi Bryant’s murder there were suggestions that ‘human rights considerations’ played a part in the decision to release Rice early from prison. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has unequivocally rejected this suggestion, stating that “there was no clear causal connection between any … application of the Human Rights Act and the death of Naomi Bryant.” This inquest – which was secured by the Human Rights Act – will draw out any such failings and enable lessons to be learned from this tragedy

Article 2 of the Human Rights Act – used to secure the re-opening of the inquest and to ensure as broad an inquiry as possible – provides that everyone in Britain has a right to life and places an obligation on the state to protect life. Where the state may have failed to protect life, a full investigation must take place.

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

Notes to Editors

1. Anthony Rice had a record of previous sexual offences against females, including a very serious assault on a five-year-old girl. He was released from prison in November 2004 having served almost 16 years of a life sentence for a violent attempted rape. He had previously served a seven-year sentence in the early 1980s for rape and threats to kill, and had multiple convictions for indecent assaults going back to 1972.

2. It was believed that the Parole Board did not have access to information about the assault on the child when it decided to release Rice – something which might have affected the decision to release him.

3. Verna Bryant hopes to get answers to the following questions during the inquest:
a. Did Rice breach the licence under which he was released from custody, and if so, why did any such breaches not trigger his being recalled to prison?
b. Was the hostel Rice was released to suitable for an offender with his history of violent sexual offences?
c. Were there any problems with the license conditions imposed on Rice at the point of his release from prison?

20100302The inquest into the death of Naomi Bryant – killed in 2005 by convicted sex offender Anthony Rice – was today abandoned as new information about public authorities’ knowledge of the killer was revealed.
Will Parliament allow War on Terror shame to continue?Control orders punish suspects without charge or trial but do nothing to protect the public from genuinely dangerous people.

Liberty today renewed its calls for Parliament to abandon this shameful relic of the War on Terror and return to the best traditions of British justice by prosecuting suspects before the Courts.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"The end of control orders is long overdue. Established as a quick political fix in 2005, they have achieved neither justice for suspects nor security for the British public. Suspects are driven mad by endless punishment without charge but are so loosely supervised that a truly dangerous individual could easily wreak havoc. Only charges, evidence and proof will protect our lives and our way of life in the long-term.”

Cerie Bullivant, who was on a control order for two years, said:

“Once I was under a control order my life changed beyond recognition. Friends turned against me and people were afraid….the control order grew more and more restrictive – it began with forced residence, no travelling and daily signing in at a police station and ended up with tagging, curfews, no studying and forced unemployment. The control order was based on secret evidence that neither I nor my lawyer ever saw.”

“The irony is that had I actually been someone dangerous, with criminal intent, the control order wouldn’t have stopped me. Instead all it achieved was to beat me down for two years and change my life forever.”

Control orders were established in 2005 and allow suspects to be indefinitely tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others – all without police interview, charge or trial.

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


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 Britons 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. Control orders are both unfair and unsafe: Cerie Bullivant was on a control order for two years and was subject to curfews, forced residence, house searches and tagging – when his control order was quashed the judge in the High Court said there were no reasonable grounds to suspect he was involved in terrorism. Another ex-controlee, Abu Rideh, was subject to punishment without trial for 7 ½ years supposedly because he was a grave danger to the public, yet during this time he frequently attended large public gatherings unimpeded by the authorities. A transcript of Cerie Bullivant’s story in his own words is available to the media by contacting the Liberty press office on 020 7378 3656.

3. The Government’s argument that it is impossible to prosecute terror suspects is fast unravelling. Liberty has suggested that unnecessary hurdles to prosecuting terror suspects can be overcome. In particular, Liberty has suggested removing the bar on intercept (phone tap) evidence in criminal trials as 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.

4. Liberty’s latest briefing on the control order regime is available here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy10/liberty-s-briefing-on-control-order-renewal-2010-house-of-commons.pdf  

5. The control order regime is discredited and Parliament must end it. A significant blow to the regime came in June last year when the House of Lords ruled that suspects must be told the ‘gist’ of the case against them – this decision can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090610/af.pdf

20100301Control orders renewal debate in Commons todayThe House of Commons will today debate whether to renew control orders – the unsafe and unfair system for dealing with terror suspects outside the normal rule of law.
Torture cover-up must end with public inquiryThis paragraph confirms that some security service officials “appear to have a dubious record relating to actual involvement, and frankness about any such involvement, with the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed when he was held at the behest of US officials”. It also suggests that the security services misled the Parliamentary committee with responsibility for scrutinising its activities.

In a highly irregular move prior to the Court of Appeal’s judgment being handed down on 10 February, Counsel for the FCO wrote to Lord Neuberger asking for the original draft of this paragraph to be watered down. But after hearing arguments from all other parties, including Liberty who intervened in the case, Lord Neuberger issued the final version of paragraph 168 this morning with only very minor amendments.

Speaking after the release of the deleted paragraph today, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, renewed her calls for a public inquiry into UK complicity in torture. She said:

"This has been a shameful business. Complicity in torture is bad enough without repeat and strenuous attempts to cover it up. Nonetheless despite the Government's efforts, the Court of Appeal has defended principles prohibiting torture and protecting open justice that are essential to the Rule of Law."


Contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

Chronology of the case:

· In May 2008, in order to assist his defence against terrorism charges in the US, Binyam Mohamed made an application to the High Court requesting the UK government to disclose documents provided to it by the US government which gave details of Mr Mohamed's treatment by the US authorities. Mr Mohamed alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in US custody, consisting of genital mutilation, deprivation of sleep and food, being held in stress positions for days at a time, and being forced to listen to loud music and screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch black cell, all while being forced to implicate himself and others in terrorist plots against the US.

· The High Court ruled that Mr Mohamed was entitled to the documents because they concerned wrongdoing by a third party in which the UK government had been involved. Binyam Mohamed's treatment occurred at a time when the UK intelligence services had been involved in questioning him.

· The UK government then issued "public interest immunity" (PII) certificates claiming that disclosure of the documents, and 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment which summarised them, would not be in the public interest. Mr Mohamed challenged this assessment and the matter was considered by the High Court.

· Binyam Mohamed subsequently obtained the documents from the US authorities and charges against him in the US were ultimately dropped. However the UK government continued to resist publication of the 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment because it claimed that it would breach the diplomatic rule that intelligence provided by one government to another should not be disclosed without the consent of the government which provided it ("the control principle"). It was said that the consequence of this was that the Bush administration would reduce its cooperation with the UK intelligence services.

· The High Court accepted the UK government's concerns and decided not to publish the 7 paragraphs.

· Subsequently it materialised that the Foreign Secretary had misrepresented the position to the Court in that the hearing took place shortly after President Obama had been elected and it was not clear that the Obama administration would adopt the same stance as the Bush administration had done. The Court therefore agreed to reopen the matter.

· The High Court then ruled that there was no proper basis for the UK government's assertion that the US government would react in the way that was claimed. It therefore ruled that the 7 paragraphs should be published.

· The UK government appealed this decision and as a result the publication of the 7 paragraphs was postponed pending the appeal.

· Meanwhile a US court ruled in an application for habeas corpus by a Guantanamo Bay detainee that Binyam Mohamed had been treated in the way he alleged (i.e. as summarised in the 7 paragraphs).

· Despite this the UK government continued to argue that the 7 paragraphs should not be published.

· The Court of Appeal decided on 10 February 2010 that the 7 paragraphs should be published.

· The Court agreed to take further written submissions on the unusual Foreign Office request to delete one paragraph of its draft judgment. On 26 February 2010 the original paragraph was released.
20100226Court of Appeal resists government pressure to water down torture judgmentToday the Court of Appeal decided to stick by criticisms of the security services contained in ‘paragraph 168’ of Lord Neuberger’s judgment in the Binyam Mohamed torture case.Murder inquest secured by Human Rights Act opens todayLiberty is acting on behalf of Naomi’s mother, Verna Bryant, who is seeking answers as to whether public authority failings in the handling of Rice’s release from prison led to her daughter’s death. Mrs Bryant hopes that lessons will be learned and that similar tragedies in the future can be avoided.

Following Rice’s admission of guilt, the Coroner took the decision not to hold an inquest into Naomi Bryant’s death. This would have been the end of the matter but for the arguments brought by Liberty under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act (the right to life). Today a full jury inquest opens at Winchester Crown Court, scheduled to run for three weeks. This will be the first inquest to examine the monitoring and supervision of prisoners released on licence and the role played by the probation, police, and the prison services, as well as the Parole Board and private providers of accommodation.Twenty-one witnesses will give evidence, including witnesses from two probation services, the police force, the Parole Board and the hostel that Rice was released to and living in when Naomi was murdered.

James Welch, Liberty’s legal director, said:

“Where officialdom sought to scapegoat the Human Rights Act for Naomi’s murder, we have used it to ensure that there is a careful and determined investigation into the failings that led to her death. Liberty is seeking answers for Naomi’s family and has full confidence that the inquest will provide them.”

Article 2 of the Human Rights Act – used to secure the re-opening of the inquest and to ensure as broad an inquiry as possible – provides that everyone in Britain has a right to life and places an obligation on the state to protect life. Where the state may have failed to protect life, a full investigation must take place.

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


Notes to Editors

1. At the time of Naomi Bryant’s murder there were suggestions that ‘human rights considerations’ played a part in the decision to release Rice early from prison. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has unequivocally rejected this suggestion, stating that “there was no clear causal connection between any … application of the Human Rights Act and the death of Naomi Bryant.” The Committee concluded that the Human Rights Act had been used as a convenient scapegoat for unrelated failings. This inquest – that has only been made possible by the Human Rights Act – will draw out any such failings and enable lessons to be learned from this tragedy.

2. Anthony Rice had a record of previous sexual offences against females, including a very serious assault on a five-year-old girl. He was released from prison in November 2004 having served almost 16 years of a life sentence for a violent attempted rape. He had previously served a seven-year sentence in the early 1980s for rape and threats to kill, and had multiple convictions for indecent assaults going back to 1972.

3. The Parole Board did not have access to information about the assault on the child when it decided to release Rice – something which might have affected the decision to release him. Although the decision to release Rice is not something the inquest can consider (as it is deemed too far removed from Naomi Bryant’s death) this point remains one of great concern to Naomi’s family.

4. Verna Bryant hopes to get answers to the following questions during the inquest which opens today:

a. Did Rice breach the licence under which he was released from custody, and if so, why did any such breaches not trigger his being recalled to prison?

b. Was the hostel Rice was released to suitable for an offender with his history of violent sexual offences?

c. Were there any problems with the license conditions imposed on Rice at the point of his release from prison?

20100222An inquest begins today into the death of Naomi Bryant – killed in August 2005 by Anthony Rice, a violent convicted sex offender. Liberty successfully used the protections within the Human Rights Act to argue that an inquest must be held into the events leading up to Naomi’s death, and also that the inquest itself must be as wide-ranging as possible.Court of Appeal finds against BA employee banned from wearing crossThe Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s startling judgment of November 2008, which found that banning Ms Eweida from wearing a cross was not discriminatory because Christians ‘generally’ do not consider wearing a cross as a requirement of their religion.

Although the airline changed its uniform policy to allow for the open wearing of all religious symbols, including crosses, it would not admit that the original policy was unlawful and refused to pay Ms Eweida for the three months she was suspended from work.

Corinna Ferguson, Liberty’s legal officer who represents Ms Ewedia, said:

“This is a disappointing judgment that will do little to build public confidence in equality laws protecting everyone. But this is just the sort of case that a Supreme Court is for and we have every hope that the highest court in the land will put Britain's long tradition of religious tolerance into modern legal practice.”

Dr Vincent Cable, Ms Eweida’s MP and the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, said:

“We fight on and we fight on to the Supreme Court over this important issue of principle and freedom of expression.”

Lord Carey of Clifton, former Archbishop of Canterbury and supporter of Ms Eweida, said:

“The news that Nadia Eweida's appeal has failed is a sad blow both to her personally, and the cause of religious liberties and freedoms. Her courage and endurance since 2006 when she was sent home from work for wearing a cross have been an inspiration to so many of us.

"Sadly, the failure of this appeal is likely to lead to further cases of religious discrimination. I believe it is not an exaggeration to say that people of faith are facing particular hardship in a period where different freedoms and rights are being tested against each other."

Ms Eweida has support from religious leaders, politicians of all parties and the Transport and General Workers Union.


Contact Liberty's press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128


Notes to Editors


1. In October 2006 BA check-in worker Nadia Eweida, a committed Christian, was suspended for refusing to remove a small cross worn around her neck. BA subsequently changed the uniform policy to allow religious symbols to be worn openly. In 2008 the employment appeal tribunal found no discrimination – this ruling set a dangerous precedent for freedom of conscience in the workplace.

2. Many public and political figures were critical of British Airways preventing Ms Eweida from wearing her cross including; Tony Blair, Vince Cable MP, Anne Widdecombe MP, Jack Straw MP, Tim Farron MP, Ken Livingstone, Dr John Sentamu – Archbishop of York, Rowan Williams – Archbishop of Canterbury, Kiran McCaffey of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Dr Indarjiit Singh – Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations.


20100212Today Liberty expressed disappointment with the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Nadia Eweida, the British Airways check-in employee banned from wearing a small cross around her neck.Foreign Secretary loses torture suppression caseIt emerged today that in a highly irregular desperate attempt to influence the Court after its draft judgment had been issued to the parties, Counsel for the FCO sent a letter to one of the judges asking for a particular paragraph of his judgment to be deleted.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“It has been clear for over a year that the Foreign Office has been more concerned with saving face than exposing torture. These embarrassing paragraphs reveal nothing of use to terrorists but they do show something of the UK government's complicity with the most shameful part of the War on Terror.”

"The Government has gone to extraordinary lengths to cover up kidnap and torture. A full public inquiry is now inescapable.”

Lord Neuberger MR said that the Foreign Secretary’s case was “logically insupportable and therefore irrational”.

The Lord Chief Justice said that the Government’s case would “partially conceal the full reasons why the court concluded that those for whom the executive in this country is ultimately responsible were involved in or facilitated wrongdoing in the context of the abhorrent practice of torture”.

He continued: “Such a case engages concepts of democratic accountability and, ultimately, the rule of law itself.”

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

The 7 contested paragraphs in full:

(IV) It was reported that a new series of interviews was conducted by the United States authorities prior to 17 May 2002 as part of a new strategy designed by an expert interviewer

(V) It was reported that at some stage during that further interview process by the United States authorities, BM had been intentionally subjected to continuous sleep deprivation. The effects of the sleep deprivation were carefully observed.

(VI) It was reported that combined with the sleep deprivation, threats and inducements were made to him. His fears of being removed from United States custody and “disappearing” were played upon.

(VII) It was reported that the stress brought about by these deliberate tactics was increased by him being shackled during his interviews;

(VIII) It was clear not only from the reports of the content of the interviews but also from the report that he was being kept under self-harm observation, that the interviews were having a marked effect upon him and causing him significant mental stress and suffering.

(IX) We regret to have to conclude that the reports provided to the SyS made clear to anyone reading them that BM was being subjected to the treatment that we have described and the effect upon him of that intentional treatment.

(X) The treatment reported, if had been administered on behalf of the United Kingdom, would clearly have been in breach of the undertakings given by the United Kingdom in 1972. Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of BM by the United States authorities.


Chronology of the case:

· In May 2008, in order to assist his defence against terrorism charges in the US, Binyam Mohamed made an application to the High Court requesting the UK government to disclose documents provided to it by the US government which gave details of Mr Mohamed's treatment by the US authorities. Mr Mohamed alleged that he had been subjected to torture while in US custody, consisting of genital mutilation, deprivation of sleep and food, being held in stress positions for days at a time, and being forced to listen to loud music and screams of other prisoners while locked in a pitch black cell, all while being forced to implicate himself and others in terrorist plots against the US.

· The High Court ruled that Mr Mohamed was entitled to the documents because they concerned wrongdoing by a third party in which the UK government had been involved. Binyam Mohamed's treatment occurred at a time when the UK intelligence services had been involved in questioning him.

· The UK government then issued "public interest immunity" (PII) certificates claiming that disclosure of the documents, and 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment which summarised them, would not be in the public interest. Mr Mohamed challenged this assessment and the matter was considered by the High Court.

· Binyam Mohamed subsequently obtained the documents from the US authorities and charges against him in the US were ultimately dropped. However the UK government continued to resist publication of the 7 paragraphs of the High Court's judgment because it claimed that it would breach the diplomatic rule that intelligence provided by one government to another should not be disclosed without the consent of the government which provided it ("the control principle"). It was said that the consequence of this was that the Bush administration would reduce its cooperation with the UK intelligence services.

· The High Court accepted the UK government's concerns and decided not to publish the 7 paragraphs.

· Subsequently it materialised that the Foreign Secretary had misrepresented the position to the Court in that the hearing took place shortly after President Obama had been elected and it was not clear that the Obama administration would adopt the same stance as the Bush administration had done. The Court therefore agreed to reopen the matter.

· The High Court then ruled that there was no proper basis for the UK government's assertion that the US government would react in the way that was claimed. It therefore ruled that the 7 paragraphs should be published.

· The UK government appealed this decision and as a result the publication of the 7 paragraphs was postponed pending the appeal.

· Meanwhile a US court ruled in an application for habeas corpus by a Guantanamo Bay detainee that Binyam Mohamed had been treated in the way he alleged (i.e. as summarised in the 7 paragraphs).

· Despite this the UK government continued to argue that the 7 paragraphs should not be published.

· The Court of Appeal decided on 10 February 2010 that the 7 paragraphs should be published.

· The Court has agreed to take further written submissions on the unusual Foreign Office request to delete one paragraph of its draft judgment.

20100210Liberty calls for full public inquiry as Court of Appeal orders disclosure of torture detailsToday the Court of Appeal ordered the publication of 7 paragraphs of a High Court judgment summarising the UK authorities' knowledge of Binyam Mohammed's torture whilst in US custody. The Foreign Secretary had fought for these embarrassing paragraphs to remain secret.Unsafe and unfair – discredited control order regime up for renewal againLiberty has long criticised the failure of control orders both as a method of controlling genuinely dangerous people and protecting innocent suspects. The human rights group urged the Government to move policy away from the war on terror and towards the rule of law.
 
A Liberty spokesperson said:

"Most people realise that control orders are both unsafe and unfair. Suspects are driven mad by endless punishment without charge but are so loosely supervised that many have disappeared.

There are reams of criminal offences with which to charge terror suspects. The Home Office should stop trying to save face over this discredited policy and pass the case files to the CPS where they belong."

Cerie Bullivant, who was on a control order for two years, said:

“Once I was under a control order my life changed beyond recognition. Friends turned against me and people were afraid….the control order grew more and more restrictive – it began with forced residence , no travelling and daily signing in at a police station and ended up with tagging, curfews, no studying and forced unemployment. The control order was based on secret evidence that neither I nor my lawyer ever saw.”

“The irony is that had I actually been someone dangerous, with criminal intent, the control order wouldn’t have stopped me. Instead all it achieved was to beat me down for two years and change my life forever.”

Control orders were established in 2005 and allow suspects to be indefinitely tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others without police interview, charge or trial.

The effect of this legislation is 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: Liberty press office 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. The House of Lords decision that suspects must be told the substance of the case against them can be found here.

3. Control orders are both unfair and unsafe; Cerie Bullivant was on a control order for two years and was subject to curfews, forced residence, house searches and tagging – when his control order was quashed the judge in the High Court said there were no reasonable grounds to suspect he was involved in terrorism. Abu Rideh, who was subject to punishment without trial for 7 ½ years, frequently attended large public gatherings unimpeded by the authorities.

4. The Government’s argument that it is impossible to prosecute terror suspects is fast unravelling. 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.

20100201(Amended 4 Feb)Today the draft order to renew control order legislation was laid before Parliament by the Home Secretary. The annual report on control orders by Lord Carlile, the reviewer of terrorism legislation, was also published today.Permission granted in Jon Gaunt's free speech challenge to OfcomLiberty, the human rights group, has intervened in the case because of its wider importance to free speech.

Jon Gaunt said:

“If you can no longer robustly challenge politicians about care for children you cannot challenge politicians about anything. British broadcasters and reporters need to know that they can challenge politicians and other powerful people on behalf of the British public, without having to fear for their jobs and careers.

British people have had the right to freedom of speech since Magna Carta in 1215. I am not about to allow an unelected quango of 'Thought Police' like Ofcom steal that fundamental right away for the British people.”

Martin Howe, Jon Gaunt's solicitor said:

“Jon's case is ground breaking. The outcome of this case will determine our understanding of the right to freedom of speech for a generation. The outcome of this case will determine if Britain's airwaves will be allowed to remain a free and exciting medium able to engage in open and honest debate or will become a grey and timid desert.”

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“We’re delighted that the judge granted permission in this plainly arguable and very important case for free speech. It is disappointing that Ofcom saw fit to resist even permission being granted.

The most chilling moment involved counsel for the regulator arguing that Jon Gaunt’s comments didn’t even count as "political speech". Thank goodness the Human Rights Act is there to protect us from the speech police and we look forward to supporting Gaunt in the next stage of this crucial legal battle.”

Jon Gaunt was sacked from TALKsport 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.

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

1. In November 2008, Redbridge Council announced a policy prohibiting smokers (even those who smoked outside the home) from fostering or adopting children. Councillor Michael Stark defended the policy and was invited onto Jon Gaunt’s talkSPORT radio show on 7 November 2008. As a former foster child himself, Gaunt expressed the view that it was more important for children to have a good parent than a non-smoking parent. In the heated debate that followed, Gaunt referred to Councillor Stark as a “health Nazi”, a “Nazi” and an “ignorant pig”. Gaunt offered an apology for the comments; however a few days later the management at talkSPORT sacked him.
20100127Today the High Court granted permission for a judicial review of Ofcom’s decision to uphold complaints against the radio talk show host Jon Gaunt.Liberty support "shock jock" Jon Gaunt’s free speech challenge to OfcomLiberty, the human rights group, has intervened in the case because of its wider importance to free speech.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Jon Gaunt’s job is fierce debate on the radio. Whilst he apologised for any offence, TALKsport and Ofcom went completely over the top. People fought the real Nazis so that we could enjoy our freedoms; the Human Rights Act is there to protect us from the speech police”

Jon Gaunt was sacked from TALKsport on 19 November 2008, 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.

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

In November 2008, Redbridge Council announced a policy prohibiting smokers (even those who smoked outside the home) from fostering or adopting children. Councillor Michael Stark defended the policy and was invited onto Jon Gaunt’s talkSPORT radio show on 7 November 2008. As a former foster child himself, Gaunt expressed the view that it was more important for children to have a good parent than a non-smoking parent. In the heated debate that followed, Gaunt referred to Councillor Stark as a “health Nazi”, a “Nazi” and an “ignorant pig”. Gaunt offered an apology for the comments; however a few days later the management at talkSPORT sacked him.

20100127Today the High Court will hear a judicial review application brought by sacked “shock jock” Jon Gaunt against Ofcom. Gaunt is bringing the challenge after Ofcom upheld complaints against him under the broadcasting code.Overwhelming support as case of BA employee banned from wearing cross is heard in Court of AppealThe Liberty poll also reveals that 86% of those polled disagree with BA’s decision to ask Ms Eweida to cover up her cross and 80% agree that this case sets a dangerous precedent in discriminating on the basis of religion.

Liberty’s ComRes polling also shows support from the Christian community for all faiths to be free from discrimination:

- 96% agree that everybody should have freedom of thought, conscience and religion as long as they do not harm other people
 
- 85% agree that it doesn’t matter what religion people are, the law should protect their right to wear symbols of their faith as long as they do not harm other people

- However, only 5% of those polled remember ever receiving or seeing any information from the Government explaining how the Human Rights Act protects religious beliefs
The Court of Appeal will consider the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s startling judgment of November 2008, which found that banning Ms Eweida from wearing a cross was not discriminatory because Christians ‘generally’ do not consider wearing a cross as a requirement of their religion

Although the airline changed its uniform policy to allow all religious symbols, including crosses, to be worn openly it would not admit that the original policy was unlawful and refused to pay Ms Eweida for the three months she was prevented from working.

Corinna Ferguson, Legal Officer for Liberty, said:

“This woman's cross was as important to her as a turban or hijab to other people in our country. British Airways sensibly changed the policy but unfortunately didn't concede the case which has left a dangerous precedent in the case law which we intend to overturn.

All that we are seeking for everyone in Britain is freedom of thought, conscience and religion and equal treatment under the law.”

Dr Vincent Cable MP said:
“I have supported Nadia since the beginning of her dispute to defend the simple, basic right to wear an unobtrusive symbol of her belief. British Airways have behaved badly, in a bullying manner and are putting at risk a fundamental British liberty.”

Rt Hon David Davis MP said:

“What could be more British than freedom of thought, conscience and religion? This woman’s small cross wasn’t hurting anyone. That our national airline should be engaging expensive lawyers to defend discrimination is a positive embarrassment to the flag.”

Rt Hon Dr John Reid MP said:

“The principle at stake here is too important to ignore; people of all faiths, and those with none, must be free to express their beliefs, in so far as they are not hurting others or infringing their rights.”

BA has instructed US law firm Baker & McKenzie LLP to act for them. Ms Eweida, who is not eligible for legal aid, is represented by Liberty’s in-house lawyers. Liberty will argue that employers should only interfere with personal expressions of religion or belief where it is necessary and proportionate, for example to protect the rights of others.

In addition to religious leaders, Ms Eweida has had support from politicians of all parties and the Transport and General Workers Union.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

1. The ComRes poll was conducted in December 2009. To view the findings in full, contact mairiclareR@liberty-human-rights.org.uk  ComRes interviewed 535 people by telephone. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables available at www.comres.co.uk
 
2. In October 2006 BA check-in worker Nadia Eweida, a committed Christian, was suspended for refusing to remove a small cross worn around her neck. BA subsequently changed the uniform policy to allow religious symbols to be worn openly. The employment appeal tribunal last year found no discrimination - this ruling has set a dangerous precedent for freedom of conscience in the workplace.
 
3. Many public and political figures were critical of British Airways preventing Ms Eweida from wearing her cross including; Tony Blair, Vince Cable MP, Anne Widdecombe MP, Jack Straw MP, Tim Farron MP, Ken Livingstone, Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Kiran McCaffey, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Dr Indarjiit Singh, Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations.


20100119Today Liberty will represent Nadia Eweida, the Christian BA check-in employee banned from wearing a small cross on a chain, as her case is heard in the Court of Appeal. A Liberty poll of UK Christians, released today, shows overwhelming support not just for Ms Eweida’s case but also for the freedom of all faiths to manifest their religion.Liberty wins landmark stop and search case in Court of Human RightsIn the case of Gillan and Quinton V the United Kingdom, the Court found that:

“…the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search... are neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. ….They are not therefore “in accordance with the law”.”

The case arose from an arms fair in the Docklands area of East London in September 2003 where Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan (amongst many other journalists and peace protestors) were subject to lengthy stop and search and prevented from attending a demonstration. After public consternation and parliamentary questions, it emerged that the whole of Greater London had been secretly designated for stop and search without suspicion on a rolling basis since 2001.

Corinna Ferguson, Legal Officer for Liberty and acting for the applicants, said:

“Liberty has consistently warned the Government about the dangers of stop and search without suspicion and actively campaigned for the tightening up of the infamous section 44 power. The public, police and Court of Human Rights all share our concerns for privacy, protest, race equality and community solidarity that come with this sloppy law. In the coming weeks, Parliamentarians must finally sort out this mess.”

Pennie Quinton said:

“There has to be a balance between private life and security. The Court has shown that section 44 is an invasion of people’s right to liberty and privacy.”

Kevin Gillan said:

“It’s fantastic news after a long struggle. I look to the Government for a strong response.”


Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128


Notes to Editors

1) Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows “areas” (not defined) to be designated for stop and search without suspicion by a police constable. Designation is by an Assistant Chief Constable (subsequently endorsed by the Home Secretary). Designations may be made in secret and no judicial or parliamentary involvement is required. Designations last 28 days but have been made on a rolling basis for years at a time. Whole police areas may be designated and during the height of the Iraq War, these included several counties of England and Wales. The test for designation is not “necessity” but mere “expedience”.

2) The power has frequently been used against peaceful protestors including the octogenarian holocaust survivor Walter Wolfgang who was unlawfully ejected from the Labour Party conference in 2005 after heckling the then Foreign Secretary (now Justice Secretary) Jack Straw.

3) The statistics on the use of this power demonstrate as few as 0.6 per cent of stop and searches in 2007/8 resulted in an arrest and that if you are black or asian you are between 5 and 7 times more likely to be stopped under section 44. The Court noted (paragraph 85 of the judgment), the disproportionate number of black and asian people that have been stopped. Liberty will be suggesting urgent amendments to section 44 during the passage of the Crime and Security Bill (before Parliament in the next few weeks). These would:

- Require that a section 44 authorization is only given if either events to be held in a specific area; the nature of a place; or
specific information received mean that the person giving the authorization reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent acts of terrorism.

- Require that authorizations for an area or place are no larger than is reasonably necessary to enable a constable to effectively respond to a terrorism threat and is no more than one square kilometre in total.

- Require that authorizations can be made only by a chief officer of police.
 
- Require that authorizations do not last longer than is reasonably necessary and must not exceed 24 hours.

- Require that authorizations are not renewed for the same area within 7 days unless renewed in writing by the Secretary of State.
 
- Require that if the Secretary of State renews an authorization on six or more occasions he or she must lay a copy of the renewed authorization before both Houses of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.
 
- Require that notice of an authorization must be published as soon as reasonably practicable and not later than 7 days after the authorization is given.
20100112Today the Court of Human Rights ruled that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (the broad police power for stop and search without suspicion) violates the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights.Liberty response to increased airport security proposalsTo be effective, any response to terrorism must be proportionate and respectful of the human rights values of dignity, privacy and equal treatment that governments on both sides of the Atlantic have been all too easily tempted to ignore.

Liberty shares the concerns of our American sister organisation the American Civil Liberties Union. The instant introduction of “full body scanners” at airports is an obvious way to show that you are doing something, but where is the evaluation of the effectiveness of this highly costly and intrusive technology in the face of the particular threat? Where are the governmental assurances that electronic strip-searching is to be used in a lawful, proportionate and sensitive manner?

If such intrusive searching is to be employed, it should only be when absolutely necessary, on the basis of rational and non-discriminatory criteria and with the strongest degree of privacy protection possible.

Much can be done to enhance airline security if cost and inconvenience is no object; still more if passengers and professionals from all communities feel united. Whether on the street or at the terminal, suspicious behaviour is a sensible basis for enhanced checking by security professionals; race or religion is not.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128
20100104It is right that the foiled Christmas terror attempt on a plane bound for the US should have prompted fresh scrutiny of airport security, but any such examination must learn the lessons of the recent past.
Council struck common sense balance between equal treatment and freedom of conscienceThe judgment, which upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision of December 2008, also said that, in order to avoid discriminating unlawfully on grounds of sexual orientation, the council had no alternative but to require Ms Ladele to perform civil partnerships duties along with all the other registrars.

Upholding the arguments made by Liberty, who intervened in the case, the Master of the Rolls said:

“…however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events she considers contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy….include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation.”

Corinna Ferguson, Liberty’s legal officer who specialises in religious freedom cases, said:

“Freedom of conscience is incredibly precious but other people have rights and freedoms too. Employers can’t be expected to promote equal treatment under the law if they must also accommodate discrimination on the part of their employees.

This common sense judgment can be contrasted with cases in which people of faith have been punished for doing no harm and Liberty looks forward to representing Nadia Eweida in her Court of Appeal battle with British Airways in the New Year.”

In addition to intervening in the Islington Council case, Liberty represents Nadia Eweida, the Christian BA check-in employee banned from wearing a small cross on a chain, whose case is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in January 2010.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

1) Ms Ladele had been a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages for Islington Council since 2002. After the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force she was designated a civil partnership registrar, along with all other registrars in the Council. She refused to officiate at civil partnerships because she believed same sex unions to be “contrary to god’s law”. Following the commencement of disciplinary proceedings by the Council Ms Ladele brought a claim in the Employment Tribunal for religious discrimination. She was successful but in December 2008 the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the Tribunal’s decision.
 
2) Under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 it is unlawful for public authorities and other service providers to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. The Regulations include exceptions for religious organisations.
 
3) In October 2006 BA check-in worker Nadia Eweida, a committed Christian, was suspended for refusing to remove a small cross worn around her neck. The employment appeal tribunal last year found that this was not discriminatory - this ruling has set a dangerous precedent for freedom of conscience in the workplace.
20091215Today the Court of Appeal ruled that Islington council was right to expect employee Lillian Ladele to perform same-sex civil partnerships as part of her role as registrar.Human rights leaders honoured at Liberty and Justice Human Rights AwardsShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“It was a wonderful night of celebration and solidarity around the common values of the Human Rights Act. The winners, nominees and all those gathered demonstrated the ever-broadening movement to protect rights and freedoms in modern Britain.”

Roger Smith, Director of Justice, said:

“The three winners of these awards provide inspiring examples of what human rights can do to help those who would otherwise be powerless and oppressed.”

The winners of the Human Rights Awards are as follows:


Peter Duffy Award

for individuals (campaigners, lawyers, activists, academics etc) aged 35 or under

Dan Carey

For his outstanding commitment to a number of vital human rights cases - including Al-Sweady, Evans, Al-Haq and the Baha Mousa Inquiry - which required unstinting endeavour and an incredible eye for detail.

Human Rights Award

for organisations and non-legal individuals

Gurkha Justice Campaign

For the remarkable public campaign that led to retired British Army Gurkhas being accorded due respect and protection through the provision of settlement rights, education rights and health care in the UK.

Human Rights Lawyer of the Year

for solicitors, barristers, legal executives, trainees, pupils, legal academics and judges

Dinah Rose QC

For her leading contribution towards a range of human rights cases - including that relating to the rendition and torture of Binyam Mohamed, which continues to bring to light the abuses being carried out in the name of 'the War on Terror'.


The Liberty/Justice Human Rights Awards 2009 were held on 10 December at the offices of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, who sponsored the event.

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

20091211Lawyers and campaigners were among the winners who were celebrated for their ground-breaking and courageous work at the Liberty / JUSTICE Human Rights Awards last night. The awards are held annually to recognise the outstanding contribution made by individuals and organisations to further the cause of human rights.The truth about Britain's valuesLiberty’s regular poll, published on Human Rights Day, reveals overwhelming support for the contents of the Human Rights Act, however only 11% of respondents remember receiving or seeing any information from the Government about the legislation.
Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:
 
“Anyone searching for a bit of pre-Christmas cheer should look no further than this heartening poll. Despite the many serious challenges faced in Britain and beyond, the people of the world’s oldest unbroken democracy remain steadfast in their commitment to human rights. In the run up to next year’s General Election, let’s hope the politicians are listening.”

Liberty’s ComRes polling also revealed strong support for the various individual rights contained in the Act:
 
● 92% identified the right not to be tortured or degraded as either vital or important. Only 5% thought it was unnecessary.
 
● 95% identified respect for privacy, family life and the home to be vital or important. The same number thinks as highly of the right to a fair trial. Only 1% thought it was unnecessary.

● 89% believed that freedom of speech, protest and association was either vital or important. Only 3% 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 27 – 29 2009. To view the findings in full, contact mairiclareR@liberty-human-rights.org.uk  ComRes interviewed 1,003 people by telephone between 27 and 29 November 2009. The results were weighted to be demographically representative 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

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. At this evening’s Human Rights Awards in central London, lawyers, campaigners and others will be honoured for their work.

20091210Liberty poll shows overwhelming support for fundamental rights and freedomsA poll released today by Liberty shows the British public’s continued support for human rights. 96% believe it is important that there is a law that protects rights and freedoms in Britain.
High Court condemns use of secret evidenceShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"Yet again it takes a senior judge to point out what most people already know – if the Government is going to lock you up, it needs to tell you why. Thanks to this historic judgment, the shadowy secret court system that has mushroomed under the War on Terror will now be exposed to the light of day. The hard lesson of recent years is that diluting Britain’s core values and abandoning justice makes us both less safe and free."

The Court refused the Government permission to appeal but delayed the release of the two men to give SIAC time to ask the Court of Appeal to hear the case.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. In June 2009 the House of Lords ruled that suspects under control orders must be told a ‘core irreducible minimum’ of information of the case against them. This judgment can be found here.
20091201Liberty today welcomed a ruling from the High Court that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of secret evidence. The ruling, which said that bail applicants must be given an irreducible minimum of information about the case against them, also rejected Government claims that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) was immune from judicial review.Home Secretary fails vulnerable hackerLiberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: "A government can't tie its own hands and then protest that its hands are tied. The shoddy treatment of this vulnerable man should demonstrate that our rotten extradition laws need urgent reform."

Gary McKinnon is now facing a lengthy sentence in a US jail for hacking into Pentagon and NASA systems from his home in London. McKinnon has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and his lawyers argued, in an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, that because of this, and because the crime was committed on British soil that he should be tried here in the UK.

Liberty argues that where conduct constituting a crime occurs in the UK then a British court should be allowed to refuse extradition if it is in the interests of justice to do so. Liberty also holds that the requesting country should have to make out the case for extradition in a British court before the request is granted.

20091127Home Secretary Alan Johnson stated last night that the Government would not intervene to block Gary McKinnon's extradition.
Liberty welcomes O'Connor protest policing report Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"Denis O'Connor's report on public order policing may prove to be one of the most important interventions in the modern debate about this vital service. Chief Constables would be wise to heed his warning about holding firm to the original Peel principles of impartial policing with minimum intrusion and by consent.

"Whilst the recent public order policing experience has been mixed, with tragic consequences, Parliament needs to take its share of the responsibility. Legislators have sent officers dangerously conflicting signals and left the service more politicised and vulnerable as a result."


20091125Denis O'Connor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, today published the second part of his report on public order policing tactics, saying that police should remember the founding principles of British policing but adapt methods to modern protests.
Jenny Willott MP and Liberty hold DNA clinic in CardiffLiberty has dismissed new Government proposals for the DNA database as ‘inadequate’ and called for the UK to comply with last December’s European Court of Human Rights judgment and remove innocents from the DNA database.

Jenny Willott MP said:

“This is a fantastic opportunity for innocent people in my constituency to receive expert advice on how to get themselves off the database. I strongly urge any residents living in Cardiff Central in this position, to book an appointment at this DNA Clinic.”

Anna Fairclough, Legal Officer for Liberty, said:

“The Home Office intends to stockpile innocent peoples’ DNA for as long as it thinks it can get away with. The popularity of our DNA clinics show this causes real concern to people who have done nothing wrong but find their profiles held alongside those of rapists and murderers. It is time for politicians to show us they care about personal privacy and the presumption of innocence.”

Forty percent of Britain’s criminals are not on the database but hundreds of thousands of innocent people are. The National DNA database is one of the largest in the world, holding 4.5 million profiles – this includes around 300,000 children and approximately 850,000 innocent people who have never been charged or cautioned.

To book a place at the DNA clinic call Rachel Thomas on 02920 668 558.

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

Notes to Editors

1. Liberty agrees that a carefully managed 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 lives, 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 for these types of serious offence.


2. DNA timeline:

· 11 May 2001 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) is amended so that DNA taken after arrest no longer had to be destroyed on acquittal or where proceedings were discontinued.

· In April 2004 PACE is amended again to enable police to take DNA or fingerprints of anyone aged 10 or over who is arrested for a recordable offence.

· From 2005 under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) all offences become arrestable offences casting the net for DNA sampling ever wider.

· 4 December 2008 – European Court of Human Rights hands down judgment in the S and Marper v UK ruling that the UK’s policy of indefinite retention of DNA is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

· 18 December 2008 - Government publishes Policing and Crime Bill to which clauses were added to allow for regulations to govern DNA and fingerprint retention. As the Bill makes its passage through parliament there is widespread cross-party opposition to the use of secondary legislation for an issue of such importance. Under the regulation power, parliamentarians would after only a 90 minute debate, have to accept or reject the regulations in their entirety with no opportunity for amendment

· July 2009 – Home Office launches consultation on future of DNA retention post S and Marper. Among other things the Government proposes that DNA of those arrested but not convicted is retained for periods of 6 and 12 years. The Government relies heavily on research from the Jill Dando Institute to justify these proposals. This research is subsequently widely contested in the scientific community

· August 2009 – Home Office consultation on DNA closes. Read Liberty’s response to the consultation here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/liberty-s-response-to-dna-database-consultation.pdf

· 19 August – Damian Green MP announces that the police have agreed to delete his DNA record following his widely controversial arrest relating to Home Office leaks.

· 25 September 2009 – spokesperson from the Jill Dando Institute announces on the Today programme that the Government’s proposals for DNA retention periods had a flimsy research basis at best. On the same day, Diane Abbott launches the first Liberty DNA clinic in an attempt to advise innocent young people in Hackney on how to have their DNA removed from the database – future clinics are expected around the country.

· Ahead of Committee Stage of the Policing and Crime Bill in the House of Lords the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front Benches and other peers tabled an amendment to delete the same Regulation making clauses from the Bill. The tabled amendments were due to be debated on 20th October 2009.

· 19 October 2009 – the Home Office announces that the clauses in the Policing and Crime Bill which would allow for regulations on DNA retention are to be dropped from the Bill.

· 20 November 2009 – Liberty and Jenny Willott MP hold a DNA clinic in her Cardiff Central constituency.

20091119Innocents on the DNA database given help to remove their profilesToday Wales’ first ‘DNA clinic’ launches in Cardiff, giving free legal assistance to people whose profiles have been unfairly added to the DNA database. Jenny Willott, Liberal Democrat MP for Cardiff Central, along with lawyers from human rights group Liberty will provide help and advice to those who want their DNA profiles removed from the national database.Government announces innocents will continue to be held on DNA databaseShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“It seems the Government still refuses to separate the innocent and the guilty and maintains a blanket approach to DNA retention. This grudgingly modified policy creates a repeat collision course with the Courts and Ministers look stubborn rather than effective or fair.

"Nobody disputes the value of DNA and anyone arrested can have a sample taken and compared to crime scenes. But stockpiling the intimate profiles of millions of innocent people is an unnecessary recipe for error and abuse. Politicians need to show us that they care about the presumption of innocence and not just when MPs expenses are being discussed.”

In December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights found Britain’s DNA retention regime – under which millions of innocent profiles are held – to be a disproportionate interference with personal privacy rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 0797 383 1128


Notes to Editors

Liberty agrees that a carefully managed 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 lives, 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 for these types of serious offence.


2. DNA timeline

· 11 May 2001 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) is amended so that DNA taken after arrest no longer had to be destroyed on acquittal or where proceedings were discontinued.

· In April 2004 PACE is amended again to enable police to take DNA or fingerprints of anyone aged 10 or over who is arrested for a recordable offence.

· From 2005 under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) all offences become arrestable offences casting the net for DNA sampling ever wider.

· 4 December 2008 – European Court of Human Rights hands down judgment in the S and Marper v UK ruling that the UK’s policy of indefinite retention of DNA is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

· 18 December 2008 - Government publishes Policing and Crime Bill to which clauses were added to allow for regulations to govern DNA and fingerprint retention. As the Bill makes its passage through parliament there is widespread cross-party opposition to the use of secondary legislation for an issue of such importance. Under the regulation power, parliamentarians would after only a 90 minute debate, have to accept or reject the regulations in their entirety with no opportunity for amendment

· July 2009 - Home Office launches consultation on future of DNA retention post S and Marper. Among other things the Government proposes that DNA of those arrested but not convicted is retained for periods of 6 and 12 years. The Government relies heavily on research from the Jill Dando Institute to justify these proposals. This research is subsequently widely contested in the scientific community

· August 2009 - Home Office consultation on DNA closes.

· 19 August 2009 – Damian Green MP announces that the police have agreed to delete his DNA record following his widely controversial arrest relating to Home Office leaks.

· 25 September 2009 – spokesperson from the Jill Dando Institute announces on the Today programme that the Government’s proposals for DNA retention periods had a flimsy research basis at best. On the same day, Diane Abbott launches the first Liberty DNA clinic in an attempt to advise innocent young people in Hackney on how to have their DNA removed from the database – future clinics are expected around the country.

· Ahead of Committee Stage of the Policing and Crime Bill in the House of Lords the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front Benches and other peers tabled an amendment to delete the same regulation-making clauses from the Bill. The tabled amendments were due to be debated on 20 October 2009.

· 19 October 2009 – the Home Office announces that the clauses in the Policing and Crime Bill which would allow for regulations on DNA retention are to be dropped from the Bill.

20091111Despite widespread opposition, the Home Office announced today plans to retain innocents DNA for six years. Innocent 16 and 17 years olds arrested for a serious crime will be treated the same as adults. All other children arrested but not convicted of any offence will have their profiles held for 3 years.Secretive surveillance powers openly challenged for the first timeLiberty represents the complainant, Jenny Paton, and hopes to deal a blow to frivolous use of these intrusive powers.

James Welch, legal director at Liberty and representing Jenny Paton, said:

“Jenny Paton is bringing a vital test case on behalf of ordinary members of the British public. If a mother going about her lawful business can be followed and spied upon in this – frankly very creepy – fashion, where does that leave the rest of us?

It is to be hoped the IPT upholds her complaint. But if it does not and the council’s actions are judged appropriate, we should all be very worried indeed.”

There is no ‘right to know’ under RIPA, meaning that complaints about covert surveillance cannot often be brought as individuals have no idea they have been targeted.

Contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) regulates the use and access of surveillance by public bodies. On 17 April the Government announced a long-overdue review of RIPA, albeit limited in scope.

2. Liberty’s response to the consultation called for five main changes – set out below. It is clear from the Government’s statement that it does not plan to go far enough towards reforming the Act. Liberty’s full consultation response is available here (PDF) and more information can be obtained by calling Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677.

Overview of the main changes Liberty is calling for:
 
a. All interception of communications and intrusive surveillance should be authorised by judicial warrant.
b. All other types of surveillance should be independently authorised and depending on the level of intrusion, some powers may require authorisation by a magistrate.
c. The number of public bodies that have access to surveillance powers should be reduced.
d. The purposes for which intrusive surveillance can be authorised need to be restricted in scope.
e. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is where most applications for review of surveillance powers must go, but the procedure is fundamentally flawed and needs to be overhauled.

3. Liberty has produced an introductory guide to RIPA, which is available here (PDF)

4. In 2003, in a case brought by Liberty in its own name and on behalf of a client, the IPT ruled that it could hold hearings to determine legal issues in public. Jenny Paton’s case is the first in which the IPT will hold a public hearing to consider a complaint substantively. The IPT deals with complaints about surveillance but also interception of communications. It has only ever found in favour of complainants on three occasions.

5. Jenny Paton was placed under surveillance by Poole Borough Council last year to check that she lived in her declared school catchment area. The case caused outrage yet it only came to light because it was incidentally revealed to Ms Paton that she and her family had been under surveillance. The surveillance lasted three weeks and included council officers spying on the family home, trailing Ms Paton’s young daughters and recording the family’s movements.
20091105Tribunal hearing starts today in RIPA covert surveillance caseA hearing examining the controversial use of covert surveillance by a local authority begins today. This landmark case is the first time these powers – granted to local authorities under the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) – will be challenged at an open hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.House of Lords battle to stop future Gary McKinnonsThe amendment would bring into force provisions that have been on the statute book for over three years.

First introduced in the Police and Justice Bill 2006, the provisions passed the House of Lords but were resisted by the Government when the Bill returned to the Commons. By introducing a ‘killing clause’ - whereby the clauses would only come into force after a resolution by both Houses - the Government made it clear that they never intended to honour Parliament’s intentions in enacting this law.

Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty, said:

“No one should be parcelled off to Europe, the US or anywhere else in the world without good reason. If a crime is thought to have been committed in the UK then a British court should be allowed to refuse extradition.

This amendment would go some way to protecting people from being hauled off to a foreign land without the bare minimum of British justice being seen to be done.”

Gary McKinnon, who has Asperger’s syndrome, has been charged with hacking into the US Pentagon and NASA systems between 1999 and 2002, an offence which was committed from his computer at home in London. Had the provisions from the Police and Justice Act 2006 been in force it is likely that extradition to the US would have been refused.

Liberty argues that where conduct constituting a crime occurs in the UK then a British court should be allowed to refuse extradition if it is in the interests of justice to do so.

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


NOTES TO EDITORS


1. Liberty’s report stage briefing on extradition in the Policing and Crime Bill in the House of Lords can be found here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/liberty-s-report-stage-briefing-on-policing-and-crime-extradition-forum.pdf  


2. The Attorney-General has advised Peers that the proposed forum amendments to the Policing and Crime Bill would put the UK in breach of its bilateral treaty obligations. However, a Joint Legal Opinion from Edward Fitzgerald QC of Doughty Street Chambers and Julian Knowles of Matrix Chambers obtained by Liberty states otherwise and can be found here http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/fitzgerald-and-knowles-advice.pdf  


3. The amendment, which would bring into force amendments that were originally passed in the Police and Justice Act 2006, reads as follows. These amendments provide: “A person's extradition to … (“the requesting territory”) is barred by reason of forum if (and only if) it appears that:

(a) a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conduct in the United Kingdom, and

(b) in view of that and all the other circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the judge must take into account whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question.

4. If this amendment had already been in place, it is quite likely that a British court would have barred Gary McKinnon’s extradition because the conduct occurred in the UK and, due to Mr McKinnon’s diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome, it would likely not have been in the interests of justice for him to be tried in the US where he would face possible long-term imprisonment.

20091104Policing and Crime amendment would allow judges to prevent extradition for crimes committed in the UKToday the House of Lords will have the opportunity to prevent situations like Gary McKinnon's reoccurring. An amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill would allow British judges to bar extradition if a significant part of the crime happened in the UK.Liberty, Inquest and Justice hold parliamentary meeting as opposition to secret inquests mountsHosted by Diane Abbott MP, speakers will include Shami Chakrabarti (Liberty), Helen Shaw (Inquest), Eric Metcalfe (Justice) and Susan Alexander, bereaved mother of Azelle Rodney.

Despite a public climbdown in May, the Government intends to go ahead with plans to hold investigations into controversial deaths in secret. On 21 October, the House of Lords voted new provisions onto the Coroners and Justice Bill which removed the need for the Government’s ‘secret inquiries’ clause. When the Bill returns to the Commons the Government will ask MPs to reject the Lords amendments

WHAT: Liberty, Justice and Inquest parliamentary meeting into secret inquests

WHO: Diane Abbott MP, Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti, INQUEST Co-director Helen Shaw, Justice’s Director for Human Rights, Eric Metcalfe, Susan Alexander, bereaved mother of Azelle Rodney

WHEN: Monday 2 November 2009, 16.00-17.30

WHERE: Committee room 16, House of Commons

In addition to limiting transparency, these proposals generate widespread concern about the consequences for bereaved families and the negative impact on public trust and confidence - there is growing speculation that secret inquiries will be used to investigate 7/7 deaths. On Friday, the Lord Chancellor Jack Straw was publicly criticised by a coroner for persisting with the secret inquest policy.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to editors

The Liberty, Justice and Inquest briefing on amendments to the Coroners and Justice bill can be found here http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/joint-inquest-liberty-justice-briefing-on-intercept-inquiries-report-lords.pdf

20091030Campaigners, parliamentarians and victims unite against Government plans for secret inquiriesAt 16.00 on Monday 2 November in Committee room 16 Liberty, Inquest and Justice will hold a parliamentary meeting into plans to hold inquests in secret.
Supreme Court rebalances law on enhanced CRB disclosuresIn addition, in cases of doubt, Chief Constables should allow the individual affected to make representations before the information is released to employers.

This judgment comes at a time where police are holding more information for longer and when an increasing proportion of the population is subject to employment vetting. The ruling will offer greater protection to individuals against the risk that their lives and careers will be ruined by unfounded or malicious allegations.

Anna Fairclough, Legal Officer for Liberty said:

“The Supreme Court has thankfully brought some wisdom and balance to the current frenzy around employment vetting. At a time when more people than ever before have been made subject to CRB checks, and the police seek to hold information forever, this judgment strikes a welcome note of caution and fairness.

Our children are better protected by a rational and balanced scheme than by one that disclosed gossip and rumour without safeguards.”

The judgment not only increases the threshold for disclosure, but it also provides important procedural protection for individuals who, in appropriate circumstances, should be given a chance to respond to allegations before they are disclosed to an employer.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

1) For a copy of the judgment contact Liberty’s press office on MCRodgers@liberty-human-rights.org.uk  

2) Standard CRB disclosures reveal convictions, reprimands and warnings, including all that are spent. Enhanced CRB disclosures also disclose ‘any other information which in the opinion of the Chief Constable might be relevant to the position applied for and ought to be included in the certificate’. This can include information about others (family members, cohabitees) and non-criminal information. Prior to today’s judgment, case law said that the police were under a duty to disclose information if it might be relevant, even if it only might be true. The job applicant had no chance to see or respond to the information before it was disclosed to the employer.

3) Regulations under the Police Act 1997 came into force on 12th October which greatly extends the number of people required to have enhanced disclosures. Anyone covered by the ISA scheme – estimated to be about 11 million people – will now also be subject to enhanced CRB disclosures.

20091029Today the Supreme Court ruled that much greater consideration of the private lives of job applicants is required when enhanced CRB checks are made.Government concede modern day slavery legal gapHowever, in advance of the vote the Government has agreed in principle that there is a need for this offence and will introduce a revised offence in this Bill next week.

Liberty identified the need to properly outlaw modern day slavery after representing a woman who had been subjected to forced labour. Despite managing to escape and complain to police, nothing was done to investigate her case until Liberty brought Judicial Review proceedings. In June of this year Liberty and Anti-Slavery International suggested the creation of this new offence, and Baroness Young of Hornsey, an independent Crossbench peer took the amendment through the House of Lords.

Isabella Sankey, Policy Director of Liberty:

“We are incredibly grateful to Cross Benchers, Liberal Democrats and Conservative peers, and now the Government for listening to the strength of our argument. There is understandable public scepticism about politics these days, but this victory shows the potential for protecting the most vulnerable in our society when politicians on all sides come together.”

Joanna Ewart-James, Supply Chain Co-ordinator at Anti-Slavery International, said:

“It is shocking that these criminal offences do not already exist so we are very pleased that the Government has agreed to introduce an amendment to this Bill.

“Once in force, we expect that police and prosecutors will be better able to press charges against perpetrators of this serious crime, providing better protection to the most vulnerable workers in our economy.”

Baroness Young of Hornsey said:

“Like many others I was shocked to learn that forced labour had never been properly criminalised in this country. All sides of the House have now recognised the important, urgent need for this offence. My pleasure that the hard work, expertise and advice of Liberty and Anti-Slavery International and that of my fellow peers has paid off, is mitigated by the fact that we need such a law.”

Heavyweight support for the criminalisation of forced labour and servitude also comes from trade unions and prominent members of the legal profession. Former DPP, Ken MacDonald QC, and Helen Mountfield, both of Matrix Chambers, have provided Legal Opinions that the gap in existing UK law is likely to place Britain in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Trade union Unite and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority have also pledged their support.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Case study information is available. Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or MCRodgers@liberty-human-rights.org.uk  

2. For a copy of Ken MacDonald QC and Helen Mountfield’s Legal Opinion and/or a copy of the amendment (laid by Baroness Young) contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or MCRodgers@liberty-human-rights.org.uk  

3. Liberty and Anti-Slavery International’s joint briefing on this issue is available here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/joint-liberty-asi-report-stage-briefing-on-forced-labour-lords.pdf  

4. Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, provides that “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude”, or “be required to perform forced or compulsory labour”.

5. In a recent case at the European Court of Human rights (Siliadin v France) France was found to be in breach of Article 4 because it had not specifically enacted laws to outlaw servitude and forced labour. It is the contention of Liberty, Anti-slavery International and Ken MacDonald QC and Helen Mountfield that Britain would likewise be found in breach, if challenged.

20091028The Government today conceded the need to criminalise forced labour and servitude. Parliament was expected to vote this afternoon on an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill that would make servitude and forced labour an offence in the UK for the first time.Liberty comment on BNP appearance on Question TimeShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

"Our thanks and respect must go to the Chair and democratic panelists for the difficult job they did. But as so often on this programme, the Question Time audience were the real stars. Liberty was founded, 75 years ago when fascism was on the rise.

"Last night the leader of Britain's modern fascist party was exposed for the nervous lying Nazi that he so clearly is. Common values and decency run very deep in Britain - as long as we hold onto them, this party of hate will never pose a credible threat."



20091023Human rights group Liberty responded to the hatred exposed by British National Party leader Nick Griffin on BBC1's Question Time last night.Crucial vote expected on Monday: Will modern slavery be outlawed?Liberty and Anti-Slavery International are urgently pushing for a change in the law as, at present, cases are falling through the gaps. Liberty is representing a woman recently held in modern slavery in the UK – despite managing to escape and complain to police, nothing was done to investigate her case until Liberty brought Judicial Review proceedings. The lack of a criminal offence in this area leaves police uncertain how to proceed and unsure of the chance of obtaining a conviction.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

“In an age when new criminal offences have flown out of Westminster like confetti, the lack of an effective anti-slavery law is a gaping hole in the protection of the vulnerable. We urge parliamentarians of all stripes to join together in supporting this amendment and honouring the tradition of William Wilberforce.”

Aidan McQuade Director of Anti-Slavery International said:

“To not have a law to protect people from forced labour is comparable to Britain not having criminalised torture. Forced labour will remain a reality in the UK unless adequate legislation is put in place and enforced. Getting the police to prosecute those who hold people in modern day slavery is extremely difficult because of the lack of a clear offence criminalising this practice. The existing legal provisions fail to protect victims or ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes are brought to justice.”

Heavyweight support for this amendment also comes from trade union and prominent members of the legal profession. Former DPP, Ken MacDonald QC, and Helen Mountfield, both of Matrix Chambers, have provided Legal Opinions that there is a gap in existing UK law which is likely to place Britain in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Trade unions Unite and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority have also pledged their support.

Tony Woodley, the Joint General Secretary of Unite, stated:

“Liberty’s campaign to criminalise the outrageous actions, which in our view amount to modern day slavery, deserves our support and Unite will use whatever political levers it can to persuade government to accept this amendment.”

Contact Bridget Beale (Liberty) on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

Contact Paul Donohoe (Anti-Slavery International) on 020 7501 8934 or 07779 624 385


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Case studies are available. Contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677.

2. For a copy of the amendment to be debated on Monday (laid by Baroness Young) contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677.

3. An expert Legal Opinion on the issue by the former Director of Public Prosecutions Ken MacDonald QC and Helen Mountfield of Matrix Chambers is available here.

3. Liberty and Anti-Slavery International’s joint briefing on this issue is available here.

4. Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, provides that “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude”, or “be required to perform forced or compulsory labour”.

5. In a recent case at the European Court of Human rights (Siliadin v France) France was found to be in breach of Article 4 because it had not specifically enacted laws to outlaw servitude and forced labour. It is the contention of Liberty, Anti-slavery International and Ken MacDonald QC and Helen Mountfield that Britain would likewise be found in breach, if challenged.

20091023Heavyweight pressure mounts for Parliamentarians to criminalise forced labour and servitude.Parliament is expected to vote on an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill on Monday that, if passed, will make servitude and forced labour an offence in the UK for the first time.
Director of Public Prosecutions defends Human Rights ActThe rights enshrined in the act were "basic, fundamental, and so much part of our way of life that we take them for granted," Starmer said, in response to the Conservative pledge to scrap the act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.

Sabina Frediani, Campaigns co-ordinator for Liberty said:
 
"We welcome the Director of Public Prosecution's staunch defence of the much maligned Human Rights Act. He joins a growing consensus that recognises the legislation as our own home-grown bill of rights. We would urge those who are hostile to the act to heed his words and think again."

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to editors

1. Starmer's comments were part of the public prosecution service annual lecture, on the role of the prosecutor in a modern democracy. The full text of the speech is available here. 

2. The Human Rights Act is a written law (statute) passed in 1998 which is in force in England and Wales. The human rights that are contained within this law are based on the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is why, when we talk about the rights granted by the Human Rights Act we often refer to them as ‘Convention rights’.








20091022Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer has said he wants to "lay bare the lie that suggests the Human Rights Act is a criminals' charter" and show that it does protect the rights of victims.
Secret inquests defeated in the House of LordsIsabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty:

"Once again the Upper Chamber has delivered a victory for fundamental rights and the rule of law. How dare MPs that spent years lecturing us about victims’ rights seek to deprive bereaved families of the open justice that is the only point of an inquest?

"National security can be protected within the jury system as it has been for centuries but the relatives of those who die on the Government’s watch - whether in Brixton or Basra – are entitled to know why."

Despite a public climbdown in May, the Government intended to go ahead with plans to hold investigations into controversial deaths in secret. Like the controversial secret inquest proposals, the inquiry would be instigated by the executive and could exclude bereaved families, legal representatives and the public from attending.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to editors

The joint Liberty, Justice and Inquest briefing on amendments to the Coroners and Justice bill can be found here (PDF)

20091021In a vote today the House of Lords threw out clauses buried in the Coroners and Justice Bill which would allow for an inquest to be suspended and a 'secret inquiry' held in its place.
Government attempts to revive secret inquestsLike the controversial secret inquest proposals, the inquiry would be instigated by the executive and could exclude bereaved families, legal representatives and the public from attending.

Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty said:

"It beggars belief that this rotten policy has been resurrected. It is thoroughly perverse for a Government that has spent over a decade lecturing the public about victims' rights to attempt to exclude bereaved families from open justice.

When will New Labour’s obsession with secret courts and parallel legal systems end? There is no accountability without transparency."

The provisions will also allow a Minister to restrict disclosure or publication of any documents and withhold parts of the final report. In addition to limiting transparency, these proposals generate widespread concern about the consequences for bereaved families and the negative impact on public trust and confidence. The Coroners and Justice Bill reaches its final stage in the House of Lords today.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to editors

The Liberty, Justice and Inquest briefing on amendments to the Coroners and Justice bill can be found here (PDF)
20091020Lords vote on hidden clauses in Bill that show secret inquests still possibleDespite a public climbdown in May, the Government intends to go ahead with plans to hold investigations into controversial deaths in secret, human rights group Liberty said today. Clauses buried in the Coroners and Justice Bill allow for an inquest to be suspended and a ‘secret inquiry’ held in its place.Sensible and tactical retreat by Government on DNAShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“This is another victory for Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention which protects the personal privacy of everyone in Britain. This law was breached by the largest DNA database per capita in the world and would still be breached by the Home Office’s discredited proposals.

Stockpiling the intimate details of millions of innocents is bad enough without ducking public and parliamentary scrutiny by sneaking regulations in by the back door.”

In December 2008, The European Court of Human Rights found Britain’s DNA retention regime which holds millions of innocent profiles, to be a disproportionate interference with personal privacy rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 0797 383 1128

Notes to Editors

1. Liberty agrees that a carefully managed 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 lives, 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 for these types of serious offence. This approach is the one adopted in Scotland and many other EU and comparable states.

2. DNA timeline

- 11 May 2001 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) is amended so that DNA taken after arrest no longer had to be destroyed on acquittal or where proceedings were discontinued.

- In April 2004 PACE is amended again to enable police to take DNA or fingerprints of anyone aged 10 or over who is arrested for a recordable offence. 

- From 2005 under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) all offences become arrestable offences casting the net for DNA sampling ever wider.

- 4 December 2008 – European Court of Human Rights hands down judgment in the S and Marper v UK ruling that the UK’s policy of indefinite retention of DNA is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

- 18 December 2008 - Government publishes Policing and Crime Bill which contains clauses to allow for regulations to govern DNA and fingerprint retention. As the Bill makes its passage through parliament there is widespread cross-party opposition to the use of secondary legislation for an issue of such importance. Under the regulation power, parliamentarians would after only a 90 minute debate, have to accept or reject the regulations in their entirety with no opportunity for amendment

- July 2009 - Home Office launches consultation on future of DNA retention post S and Marper. Among other things the Government proposes that DNA of those arrested but not convicted is retained for periods of 6 and 12 years. The Government relies heavily on research from the Jill Dando Institute to justify these proposals. This research is subsequently widely contested in the scientific community 

-  August 2009 - Home Office consultation on DNA closes.

- 19 August – Damian Green MP announces that the police have agreed to delete his DNA record following his widely controversial arrest relating to Home Office leaks.

- 25 September 2009 – spokesperson from the Jill Dando Institute announces on the Today programme that the Government’s proposals for DNA retention periods had a flimsy research basis at best. On the same day, Diane Abbott launches the first Liberty DNA clinic in an attempt to advise innocent young people in Hackney on how to have their DNA removed from the database – future clinics are expected around the country. 

- Ahead of Committee Stage of the Policing and Crime Bill in the House of Lords the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front Benches and other peers tabled an amendment to delete the same Regulation making clauses from the Bill. The tabled amendments were due to be debated on 20 October 2009.

- 19 October 2009 – the Home Office announces that the clauses in the Policing and Crime Bill which would allow for regulations on DNA retention are to be dropped from the Bill.

20091019Home Office drops DNA clauses from Policing and Crime BillThe Home Office announced today that the clauses on DNA retention will be dropped from the Policing and Crime Bill and reconsidered after the Queen’s Speech. The clauses provided a regulation power that would have allowed sweeping retention of innocents’ DNA to continue.Liberty condemns 'rotten' extradition lawsThe Home Office is preparing to extradite Mr McKinnon to the United States of America where he will stand trial. McKinnon has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and his lawyers argued, in an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, that because of this, and because the crime was committed on British soil that he should be tried here in the UK.

Liberty argues that where conduct constituting a crime occurs in the UK then a British court should be allowed to refuse extradition if it is in the interests of justice to do so. Liberty also holds that the requesting country should have to make out the case for extradition in a British court before the request is granted.

Sabina Frediani, Campaigns Co-ordinator for Liberty said:

“Never were justice and the law so out of sync as in the case of Britain’s rotten extradition arrangements. People up and down the country are rightly horrified by the way that a vulnerable man has been sold down the river when he should have been protected and tried here at home.

Liberty will do everything possible to support any appeal to the Court of Human Rights and to ensure that Parliament faces up to its responsibilities to amend the Act.”


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Conservatives have proposed an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill that, if it becomes law, would have made a huge difference to Gary McKinnon’s case.

2. The Conservative amendment would bring into force amendments that were originally passed in the Police and Justice Act 2006. These amendments provide:

(1) “A person's extradition to … (“the requesting territory”) is barred by reason of forum if (and only if) it appears that:

(a) a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conduct in the United Kingdom, and

(b) in view of that and all the other circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the judge must take into account whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question.


20091016Britain's unfair extradition agreements have failed to protect Gary McKinnon, who is now facing 60 years in a US jail for hacking into Pentagon and NASA systems from his home in London.
Sir Hugh Orde to speak on peaceful protestOther speakers include the rapper and activist Lowkey and Richard George of the Plane Stupid campaign group.

John Kampfner, director of Index on Censorship, said:

“Free speech is not just about journalists and writers and what appears in print. It’s about broader political engagement, including protest. It’s about not just knowing your views but knowing your rights too.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

“There is a long and honourable tradition of student protest as a powerful catalyst for change. This event gives a new generation the chance to hear the war stories of those who came before. Importantly it’s also a forum for debate and learning about how to make the voice of dissent better heard.”

People keen to attend Protest! should arrive at the Keyworth Conference Centre at Southbank University in time for registration at 2:00pm on Monday 12 October, with the event finishing by 6:00pm. There is no need to pre-register but delegate places are limited so early arrival is recommended.

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

Notes to Editors

1. More information and a promotional flyer for Protest! are available on Index on Censorship’s website here and on Liberty’s website here.

2. Index on Censorship has published a quarterly magazine covering freedom of expression issues since1972. It works on an international level to promote free expression in the media and arts, leads campaigns on the most pertinent issues affecting free speech, publishes up-to-the-minute news and analysis online and supports a dynamic calendar of events.

3. Liberty is the UK’s oldest civil liberties and human rights group and was formed 75 years ago in response to police brutality at protest marches in London during the 1930s. To this day, Liberty continues to protect the right to protest peacefully through its campaigning and legal work.

20091012ACPO chief joins panel at Index on Censorship and Liberty eventThe President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, will take the same stage today as Shami Chakrabarti, John Kampfner and Peter Tatchell. They are speaking at Protest! Talking About Your Right to Speak Out – a free event at London’s South Bank University encouraging and enabling students to become involved in activism.New Tory book in support of the Human Rights ActPeter Oborne said

"Like many Conservatives I was sceptical of the Human Rights Act – until I read it and started to think about it. It soon became clear that it was a near perfect expression of Tory values."

The authors say that the Human Rights Act is 'an impeccably Conservative document' and based on ancient conservative beliefs. They dismiss claims that the Act cedes power to a foreign court, insinuates a left-wing agenda into the British legal system and compromises national security. Norman and Oborne will discuss their book at Liberty's Conservative conference fringe event on Tuesday 6 October, 6.00 – 7.00pm in the Midland Hotel.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

1. Jesse Norman is one of the intellectual architects of the new Conservatism. He is parliamentary candidate for Hereford and South Herefordshire, and Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange. Prior to entering politics he taught and did research in philosophy at University College London, was a Director at Barclays, and ran an educational charity in Eastern Europe during and after the Communist period. He writes regularly in the national press. His books include The Achievement of Michael Oakeshott (Duckworth 1992); and Compassionate Conservatism (2006) and Compassionate Economics (2008), both published by Policy Exchange.

2. Peter Oborne is Political Columnist for the Daily Mail, Contributing Editor to the Spectator, and presents documentary films for Channel Four. He was Political Editor of the Spectator for five years. He is the author of Alastair Campbell: New Labour and the Rise of the Media Class (Aurum Press); The Rise of Political Lying (The Free Press) and The Triumph of the Political Class (Simon and Schuster). Peter Oborne’s films for Channel 4 Dispatches include Iraq: The Reckoning; Afghanistan: Here’s One we Invaded Earlier; Spinning Terror and It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim. He is a regular presenter on BBC Radio Four’s The Week in Westminster. Peter Oborne’s latest film, Holy Warriors, was screened on Channel 4’s Unreported World on  October 2 2009.

3. A summary of the book can be found below:

Chapter 1: Why the Human Rights Act Matters

o They unearth the history of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – in particular the role of Conservative lawyers in its drafting;

o They argue that the Act is a bulwark against an overintrusive state;

o They argue that that Act allows for greater British input into the adjudication of people’s rights and importantly allows British judges to make determinations in line with British culture and traditions;

o They also argue that a large part of the British press believe wrongly that they have a vested interest in the repeal of the Human Rights Act (HRA);


Chapter 2: The Conservatism of the HRA

o They trace the Act’s Conservative pedigree, including the role of Conservative lawyer and politician Lord Kilmur and the great wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill in framing and drafting the ECHR;

o They place the Act in the conservative philosophical tradition, from Burke through to Blackstone to Dicey;

o They explain how the Act preserves parliamentary sovereignty and is uniquely in keeping with our legal and constitutional traditions;


Chapter 3: Addressing the Critics

o They tackle, head on, the many and varied criticisms levelled at the Act over the last nine years, including that:

"Bad people should not have rights; the Human Rights Act hampers the fight against terror; the Human Rights Act undermines Parliament; the Human Rights Act fuels rights inflation; rulings from the European Court should not be part of British law; the Human Rights Act imposes huge costs on business; the Human Rights Act is ineffective"

o They also argue that many of the criticisms of the Act are misplaced – springing instead from other wider public concerns;


Chapter 4: Dispelling the Myths

o They argue that falsehoods about the HRA have become so widespread as to make it hard to sustain a reasoned public debate on the Act;

o They unpack the many HRA distortions and myths have entered political discourse;

o They illustrate the scale of the problem by reference to three case studies:

- reporting of the treatment of Learco Chindamo

- media reporting over the role of the HRA in a bid to allow prisoners being able to access hardcore pornography

- reports that the HRA prevents the police from issuing ‘wanted’ photographs of suspects and fugitives


Chapter 5: A British Bill of Rights? The New European Charter?

o They analyse recent Labour and Tory proposals for new “Bills of Rights” and interrogate what is really on offer.
20091005Authors urge Conservative party to reclaim "Churchill's legacy"Conservative parliamentary candidate Jesse Norman and political columnist Peter Oborne today launch ‘Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative case for the Human Rights Act’. The short book, published by Liberty in support of the Common Values campaign, recommends that the Conservatives reclaim their historic position as a party of British liberty and the rule of law by dropping their opposition to the Human Rights Act.Partnership between Liberty and young racing driverAlice Powell said:

“I’m proud to have Liberty’s logo on my car this season. Motorsport is one of the few sports where men and women compete on an equal footing. So any organisation that supports equality gets my support.”

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“It’s always good to see young people confounding the stereotypes that press and politicians routinely trot out as representative of them. Alice is a particularly inspiring example, competing and achieving in a traditionally male arena. Liberty is proud to see our logo carried by such an ambitious, successful and socially aware young woman.”

Alice learned to drive when she was six and has been racing from the age of eight. She has seen great success and in 2008 achieved eight podiums in the Ginetta Championship and BRDC Stars of Tomorrow.

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

Notes to Editors

1. Liberty is a campaigning group working 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. Alice Powell is the hottest new female racing driver and sports talent in the UK. Her aim is to be the first successful British woman to compete for the F1 title. Competing with the championship winning team Manor Competition who launched the careers of F1 Champions Lewis Hamilton and Kimi Räikkönen – Alice is definitely in the right place. See www.alice-powell.com

20090929Liberty’s logo will grace the car of 16-year-old Alice Powell, a racing driver and the only female in Formula Renault UK. Alice is a member of the Manor Competition team and the youngest ever female driver in the Michelin Formula Renault UK Championship – the 150mph single-seater race series which is a stepping stone to Formula One.British Airways attempts to force freedom of conscience case out of courtAlthough the airline changed its uniform policy to allow all religious symbols, including crosses, to be worn openly it would not admit that the original policy was unlawful and refused to pay Ms Eweida for the three months she was prevented from working – an amount of around £4000. Ms Eweida lost her claim of religious discrimination in the Employment Tribunal, but has been granted permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal which described the case as one of “general importance”.

Nadia Eweida said:

“It’s grossly unfair that BA should attempt to bully me out of court when this case affects all Christians. Christians must feel able to express their faith in the workplace just as other religious dress is accepted – in a democratic multicultural society it’s imperative to have mutual respect for each other’s religions.”

Corinna Ferguson, Legal Officer for Liberty, said:

“Today’s hearing is as important for access to justice as it is for freedom of conscience. Whilst it’s daunting playing David to the British Airways Goliath we must preserve respect for employees’ faith in the workplace.”

BA has instructed US law firm Baker & McKenzie LLP to act for them. Ms Eweida, who is not eligible for legal aid, is represented by Liberty’s in-house lawyers. Liberty will argue that employers should only interfere with personal expressions of religion or belief where it is necessary and proportionate, for example to protect the rights of others. The case will not be able to proceed, however, unless Ms Eweida can avoid the risk of having to pay BA’s legal costs if she loses.

In addition to religious leaders, Ms Eweida has had support from politicians of all parties and the Transport and General Workers Union.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128

Notes to Editors

In October 2006 BA check-in worker Nadia Eweida, a committed Christian, was suspended for refusing to remove a small cross worn around her neck. The employment appeal tribunal last year found that this was not discriminatory - this ruling has set a dangerous precedent for freedom of conscience in the workplace.
Many public and political figures have been critical of British Airways policy including; Tony Blair, Vince Cable MP, Anne Widdecombe MP, Jack Straw MP, Tim Farron MP, Ken Livingstone, Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Kiran McCaffey, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and Dr Indarjiit Singh, Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations.
20090924Today Liberty will represent Nadia Eweida, the Christian BA check-in employee banned from wearing a small cross on a chain, in a hearing to protect Ms Eweida from the risk of having to pay BA’s massive legal costs if she pursues her case in the Court of Appeal. BA has estimated its costs for the appeal to be at least £58,000.Diane Abbott MP and Liberty hold DNA clinic in HackneyLiberty has dismissed new Government proposals for the DNA database as ‘inadequate’ and called for the UK to comply with last December’s European Court of Human Rights judgment and remove innocents from the DNA database.

Anna Fairclough, Legal Officer for Liberty, said:

“The Government is fond of justifying its retention of innocents’ DNA with the trite phrase: ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’. The interest in our DNA clinic shows that those affected do not agree. They have done no wrong and they deeply resent their DNA profiles being held alongside those of murderers and rapists.”

Forty percent of Britain’s criminals are not on the database but hundreds of thousands of innocent people are. The National DNA database is one of the largest in the world, holding 4.5 million profiles - this includes around 300,000 children and approximately 850,000 innocent people who have never been charged or cautioned.

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

Notes to Editors

The first DNA clinic will be held in Hackney on 25 September.

An estimated 37% of black men and 77% of young black men had records on the DNA Database in 2006. There were 3.8 times more arrests of black people per head of population than of white people in 2007/08.

Liberty agrees that a carefully managed 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 lives, 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 for these types of serious offence. This approach is the one adopted in Scotland and many other EU and comparable states.

Government proposals would mean that hundreds of thousands of DNA profiles of innocent people would be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years despite the European Court of Human Rights ruling that the "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of suspects' DNA is unlawful. Read Liberty’s response to the Home Office’s Consultation ‘Keeping the Right People on the DNA database’ here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/liberty-s-response-to-dna-database-consultation.pdf  

S & Marper v United Kingdom, heard in the European Court of Human Rights on 27 February 2008, establishes that 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.
20090924Today the country’s first ‘DNA clinic’ launches in Hackney, giving free legal assistance to young people whose profiles have been unfairly added to the DNA database. Diane Abbott and Liberty lawyers will provide help and advice to those who want their DNA profiles removed from the national database.Government digs in heels over unsafe and unfair control order regimeLiberty has long criticised the failure of control orders both as a method of controlling genuinely dangerous people and protecting innocent suspects. The human rights group urged the Government to move policy away from the war on terror and towards the rule of law.
Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"It is very sad that the new Home Secretary is unprepared to correct the tragic mistakes of his predecessors. The recent liquid bomb trials demonstrate how successfully British police and prosecutors can deal with terrorism within the rule of law. Instead of asking Home Office reviewers to be considering how many control orders they can get away with, Mr Johnson should be passing case files to independent prosecutors with a view to charging the guilty and freeing the innocent. "

Ken MacDonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions said of control orders:

“…we should not attack the liberty of individuals who remain unconvicted of any crime. Control orders are a hopeless device in a modern democracy. They are a small gasp of defeat.”

Control orders were established in 2005 and allow suspects to be indefinitely tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others without police interview, charge or trial.

The effect of this legislation is 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. 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. The House of Lords decision that suspects must be told the substance of the case against them can be found here (PDF).  
 
3. Control orders are both unfair and unsafe; Cerie Bullivant was on a control order for two years and was subject to curfews, forced residence, house searches and tagging – when his control order was quashed the judge in the High Court said there were no reasonable grounds to suspect he was involved in terrorism. Abu Rideh, who was subject to punishment without trial for 7 ½ years, frequently attended large public gatherings unimpeded by the authorities.

4. The Government’s argument that it is impossible to prosecute terror suspects is fast unravelling. 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.

20090916Liberty today expressed bitter disappointment at the Government’s continued support for the much condemned system of control orders. The Home Secretary reiterated the importance of the regime and said current control orders will be looked at case by case in a bid to comply with the recent damning House of Lords judgment.'Don't let Gary go' American Civil Liberties Union joins calls to stop unfair extraditionIn a letter from the Executive Director Anthony Romero to the Foreign Secretary, the civil liberties group state:

“…that all people facing extradition either to or from the US should only be sent to face trial in a foreign country after there has been meaningful judicial review”

The ACLU support for Gary McKinnon comes on the same day that Liberty staged a protest outside the American Embassy and presented the new American Ambassador with a hamper welcoming him to his new role. The hamper contained a letter from Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the ACLU letter, ‘don’t let Gary go’ paper planes from the protest, a copy of the Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act as well as produce representing the countries of the United Kingdom.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“"The intervention of Liberty's sister, the American Civil Liberties Union, proves that Britain's Extradition Act is an international embarrassment. Vulnerable people like Gary McKinnon can be bundled off to other countries when they ought to be dealt with at home.

Janis Sharp's campaign for fairness for her son Gary has touched the hearts of parents everywhere. If Parliament doesn't amend Britain's rotten Extradition Act to put discretion and common sense back into the system, other vulnerable sons and daughters are bound to suffer."

Liberty, who campaign against unfair extradition in all its forms, argues that where conduct constituting a crime occurs in the UK then a British court should be allowed to refuse extradition if it’s in the interests of justice to do so. Liberty also holds that the requesting country should have to make out the case for extradition in a British court before the request is granted.

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

Notes to editors

- For photographs of the protest contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on mcrodgers@liberty-human-rights.org.uk

- 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.

- The full contents of the welcome hamper to the Ambassador were; a welcome letter from Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti, a copy of the letter from the ACLU to the Foreign Secretary, Bushmills Whiskey from Northern Ireland, Scottish shortbread, English breakfast tea, Welsh Caerphilly cheese, Liberty ‘don’t let Gary go’ paper planes, copies of both the Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act.

- To help Liberty’s campaign against unfair extradition and for your ‘don’t let Gary go’ plane visit http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/extradition/flight-warning-take-action.shtml


20090827The American Civil Liberties Union today wrote to the Foreign Secretary David Miliband expressing their concern about extradition arrangements between Britain and America.Liberty response to removal of Conservative MP's record from DNA databaseThe shadow immigration minister was arrested last year as part of a Home Office leak inquiry but never charged.

Anna Fairclough, Legal Officer for Liberty, said:

“The rapid destruction of Damian Green’s DNA highlights the unfairness of the current regime, which enables special treatment to be given when the police consider it expedient, while most ordinary people are dismissed or ignored.

The Home Office should note the massive public opposition to its inadequate new proposals for DNA retention, which are bound to result in hundreds of legal challenges the government will seriously struggle to defend.”

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

NOTES TO EDITORS

In December last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of suspects' DNA is unlawful. However, under Home Office proposals, hundreds of thousands of DNA profiles of innocent people will be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years.

The Home Office has just completed a three-month consultation on the ruling but has yet to issue definitive guidance to police forces. Read Liberty's consultation response.
20090820Police have agreed to delete Conservative MP Damian Green's DNA profile, but under government proposals hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be kept on the national DNA database.Diane Abbott MP and Liberty to hold DNA clinic in HackneyThe Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and Liberty lawyers will be available to provide help and advice to those who want their DNA profiles removed from the national database.

Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said:

“I am glad that Damian Green has been able to get his DNA wiped off of the database. But, as the Home Affairs Select Committee pointed out this month, black men are disproportionately represented on the database. In particular there are tens of thousands of completely innocent young people who have been stigmatised in this way. It is time that the government acted on the ECHR ruling that automatic retention of DNA is wrong. And I am looking forward to working with Liberty to make sure that young people in Hackney who are innocent of any crime can have their DNA taken off the government’s database just like Damian Green"

Liberty have dismissed new Government proposals for the DNA database as ‘inadequate’ and called for the UK to comply with last December’s European Court of Human Rights judgment and remove innocents from the DNA database.

Anna Fairclough, Legal Officer for Liberty, said:

“If Damian Green MP can have his DNA destroyed in record time, young people in Hackney should be entitled to the same. Those without a powerful voice are just as innocent, yet the police seem to find their requests for DNA destruction considerably easier to dismiss.”

Forty percent of Britain’s criminals are not on the database but hundreds of thousands of innocent people are. The National DNA database is one of the largest in the world, holding 4.5 million profiles - this includes around 300,000 children and approximately 850,000 innocent people who have never been charged or cautioned.

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

Notes to Editors

1) The DNA clinic will be held in Hackney from September. Dates still to be announced.

2) An estimated 37% of black men and 77% of young black men had records on the DNA Database in 2006. There were 3.8 times more arrests of black people per head of population than of white people in 2007/08.

3) 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 in Scotland and many other EU and comparable states.

4) Government proposals would mean that hundreds of thousands of DNA profiles of innocent people would be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years despite the European Court of Human Rights ruling that the "blanket and indiscriminate" retention of suspects' DNA is unlawful. Read Liberty’s response to the Home Office’s Consultation ‘Keeping the Right People on the DNA database’ here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/liberty-s-response-to-dna-database-consultation.pdf  

5) S & Marper v United Kingdom, heard in the European Court of Human Rights on 27 February 2008, establishes that 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.

20090820Liberty and Diane Abbott announced today that from September they will be holding a series of DNA clinics in Hackney to help those who have had their DNA retained unfairly.Liberty calls for independent inquiry into torture collusion claimsIn a report released on Sunday the Foreign Affairs Committee expressed concerns that the UK could be in breach of legal obligations by regularly using information from suspect sources.

Liberty Legal Director James Welch said:

"This is the second parliamentary report in less than a week impugning the Government's "see no evil" approach to torture. Calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the dirtiest part of Britain's War on Terror are becoming almost deafening. Is the Government listening? Will it appoint such an inquiry before it is eventually ordered by the courts?"

The Foreign and Home Secretaries used a Sunday newspaper article to strenuously deny any policy of knowingly using intelligence gained through mistreatment of prisoners.

But David Miliband and Alan Johnson said there could be no 100%
guarantee that such methods were not used by foreign nations
interrogating suspects considered a threat to the UK.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

"Today's carefully crafted article is most revealing for what it doesn't say. Did Ministers authorise systematic arrangements that contributed to torture abroad? Were MI5 officers told to look the other way and let foreign powers do our dirty work? Only an independent judicial inquiry will answer these questions and allow Britain's security services to move on."




20090809Demands for an inquiry into possible British complicity in overseas
torture mounted this weekend despite a public denial by ministers.
Liberty welcomes JCHR’s call for inquiry into UK complicity in tortureShami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"An independent inquiry into the darkest part of Britain's War on Terror is inevitable. Only a judge-led investigation will ensure that the public finally learns what ministers knew or ought to have known about interrogation under torture.

Will the Government have the courage and the decency to call such an inquiry without delay?"

The JCHR also recommend that the Intelligence and Security Committee, which oversees the work of MI5 and MI6 and reports directly to Downing Street, should be replaced by a parliamentary committee with an independent secretariat reporting to MPs .

Contact: Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128

Notes to Editors

The JCHR’s report into allegations of UK complicity in torture can be found here. 

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.
20090804The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights today called for an independent inquiry into UK complicity in torture and accused ministers of refusing to give full answers to its questions. It also critcised the Governments accountability on security and intelligence issues as ‘woefully deficient’.Liberty condemns High Court extradition decisionLiberty argues that where conduct constituting a crime occurs in the UK then a British court should be allowed to refuse extradition if it is in the interests of justice to do so. Liberty also holds that the requesting country should have to make out the case for extradition in a British court before the request is granted.

Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty, said:

“Today’s court decision demonstrates the disgrace that is Britain’s extradition arrangements that allow vulnerable people to be shipped off around the world when they should be tried here at home. Our judges’ hands have been tied by rotten legislation that should now be overhauled by Parliament without delay.”

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

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Conservatives have proposed an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill that, if it becomes law, would have made a huge difference to Gary McKinnon’s case.

2. The Conservative amendment would bring into force amendments that were originally passed in the Police and Justice Act 2006. These amendments provide:

(1) “A person's extradition to … (“the requesting territory”) is barred by reason of forum if (and only if) it appears that:

(a) a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conduct in the United Kingdom, and

(b) in view of that and all the other circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the judge must take into account whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question.


3. If this amendment had already been in place, it is quite likely that a British court would have barred Gary McKinnon’s extradition because the conduct occurred in the UK and, due to Mr McKinnon’s diagnosed Asperger’s syndrome, it would likely not have been in the interests of justice for him to be tried in the US where he would face possible long-term imprisonment.

4. Liberty’s briefing on the Policing and Crime Bill (which sets out Liberty’s position on extradition) can be found here 

20090731Human rights group Liberty today condemned the High Court decision that Gary McKinnon’s extradition must go ahead. Gary McKinnon, who has Asperger’s syndrome, has been charged with hacking into the US Pentagon and NASA systems between 1999 and 2002, an offence which was committed from his computer at home in London.Control orders: Government says ‘heads we win; tails you lose’AN, ‘the controlee’, has lived under a control order for two years but has never been told what he is accused of. Despite the House of Lords decision that suspects must be told the substance of the case against them the Government, prior to the High Court hearing, renewed the control order of AN without disclosing any further details of the case. .

Liberty calls the system “unsafe and unfair", failing both as a method of controlling genuinely dangerous people and protecting innocent suspects.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"Today's farcical proceedings highlight the nightmare of control orders and the "heads we win; tails you lose" Home Office idea of justice. A handful of officials and specially-vetted lawyers have outlasted dozens of Ministers and built their careers on punishment without trial - leaving Britain less safe and less free."

The effect of this legislation is 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 intelligence which the suspect will never see.

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.

2. One fifth of those on control orders have absconded

3. The House of Lords decision that suspects must be told the substance of the case against them 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.

- 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.


20090731Today the High Court revoked the first control order since the damning House of Lords decision in June. However, in a telling example of the Kafkaesque nature of the scheme, the Home Secretary presented a new control order to begin as soon as the current unlawful order ceases.Another Home Secretary; another ID card launch - as public support for the scheme sinks68% of those polled thought that the Government and public services already hold too much personal information and that the Government has not presented a strong enough case for the cards or register to justify their costs. Crucially whilst the Government now claims this is a voluntary scheme, as much as 60% of the sample said they would probably or definitely not volunteer for an ID card.

Liberty’s Campaigns’ Coordinator Sabina Frediani said:

“How many times can you re-design and re-launch this tired old policy? When will the Government realise that there is dwindling public support for a scheme that is as costly to our pockets as to our privacy and race relations. As a northerner myself, I have no idea of why the North West is being singled out for the dubious honour of being ID card guinea pigs. However I am delighted to say that this damning poll shows that northerners are as sceptical of this ID nonsense as the rest of Britain.”

Other results from the poll show public concern about privacy have risen dramatically in recent years – 77% of those polled believe that the UK has become a surveillance society.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 3656 or 07973831128


NOTES TO EDITORS


1. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 1,731 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 27th - 28th July 2009. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). To view the findings in full, contact mairiclareR@liberty-human-rights.org.uk  


2. 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. In a public consultation document published in November last year the Government 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).

a. Read the public consultation document, Identity Cards Act Secondary Legislation (PDF)

b. Read Liberty’s response to the consultation.


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.


5. Liberty, as part of its ‘Common Values’ campaign, yesterday released a powerful short film by graphic designer and filmmaker Will MacNeil about the threat to our personal privacy from the National Identity Register - watch it online.

20090730On the day that the Home Office re-launches the ID card scheme for the second time in ten months, a new Liberty-YouGov opinion poll demonstrates how public support for ID cards and the National Identity register is plummeting.Who cares about your privacy? Liberty joins forces with filmmaker to highlight dangers of ID card schemeWill MacNeil created the 30 second film and donated it to Liberty for use in campaigning work. Final sound design and picture colour grade was provided by Unit Post-production and the voiceover was supplied by long-time Liberty supporter Simon Callow.

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

“The striking images that Will MacNeil has created in this film should remind us all how fragile and precious our personal privacy is. ID cards are not, as the Government proposes, the magic bullet against terrorists, fraudsters, and illegal immigrants. In addition to the exorbitant financial cost, this scheme comes with immeasurable hidden costs to our privacy, race relations, and traditional freedoms.”

Personal details recorded on the National Identity Register, the database behind ID Cards, would include fingerprints, facial images and up to fifty pieces of additional information. 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 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. Will MacNeil has worked in film and television production for 16 years. He worked as assistant editor on several films including Billy Elliot and Gosford Park. In 2002, he began editing documentaries for UK broadcasters including several episodes of The Art Show, and Channel 4’s I’m Free – Inside the Comedy Closet. His first solo graphics job, the Channel 4 series Bricking It, won the Onscreen Learning Award for Technical Achievement in Graphics. Since then Will has been producing graphics for UK broadcasters including the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, Discovery, National Geographic, Sky and Virgin.

2. UNIT, founded in May 2006, is Soho’s only all-online, all-Apple, all-HD finishing house. Led by the team of Adam Luckwell, Tom Bridges and Roland Woolner, UNIT is the first of its kind in the UK and continues to lead the way in Final Cut editing. The company offers the full spectrum of post and creative service solutions including editing, online, grading, audio and visual effects. The company has built a strong reputation since its inception and was 23rd in this year’s Facilities 50, an annual report produced by Televisual magazine ranking the UK’s top 50 post houses. They were also ranked 9th best commercials post facility and 7th best for corporate in the survey. UNIT's clients are from all sectors: from commercials to promos; from documentaries to features - notable names include the BBC, HSI, National Geographic, Five, Academy, Jetix, Believe Media, and CNN.

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.

20090729Liberty, as part of its ‘Common Values’ campaign, will today release a powerful short film by graphic designer and filmmaker Will MacNeil about the threat to our personal privacy from the National Identity Register.Liberty condemns extradition of Andrew SymeouSabina Frediani, Campaigns Co-ordinator for 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 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 allegedly under duress from Greek police officers who they said beat them and withheld food and drink – statements which were immediately retracted after the two were released. There are also suggestions that police officers falsified evidence, and witness reports that Andrew was not even at the club at the time the assault was committed have been ignored.

Contact Mairi Clare Rodgers on 020 7378 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 first being presented to a British court to show there is a prima facie case against them.

2. Andrew Symeou is being extradited 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. The EAW abolishes the requirement to provide a prima facie case which seriously increases the risk of injustice in such cases by removing the power of the High Court 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 are dealt with under Part 1 of the Act, which dispenses with the requirement for a prima facie case and allows extradition for offences that may or may not be offences under UK law (so long as they are on a list of 32 offences and are punishable by 12 months or more in the requesting state). Part 2 of the Act deals with non-EU members, and provides greater safeguards. However, it allows orders to be made by the Secretary of State to designate a country as one in which it is not required to first make out a prima facie case. Orders have been made in respect of 24 countries, including the USA and all Council of Europe countries –such as Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Turkey.

20090723Today 20 year old student Andrew Symeou will be extradited to Greece without even basic evidence being shown to a UK judge. The evidence against Andrew is widely held to be seriously flawed yet he will be extradited with no opportunity for a British court to consider whether there is any case to answer.Control Orders in court once moreThe cases of AN and AF will now be considered in the light of a recent damning House of Lords decision to which the Government is yet to respond.

Neither AN or AF has been told what they are accused of. Last month, the House of Lords ruled that it was unlawful to use "secret evidence" to subject people to indefinite punishment including electronic tagging and house arrest.

In that decision Lord Hope said:

“…a denunciation on grounds that are not disclosed is the stuff of nightmares. The rule of law in a democratic society does not tolerate such behaviour. The fundamental principle is that everyone is entitled to the disclosure of sufficient material to enable him to answer effectively the case that is made against him.”

Liberty calls the system “unsafe and unfair", failing both as a method of controlling genuinely dangerous people and protecting innocent suspects.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“As stupid as they are cruel, control orders are the worst hangover from Britain’s War on Terror. No real terrorist is ever going to comply with house arrest and a large number of suspects have disappeared. But an innocent person can be subject to indefinite and severe punishment without ever having been charged or brought to trial. “

The effect of this legislation is 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 intelligence which the suspect will never see.

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.

2. Despite the House of Lords decision that suspects must be told the substance of the case against them, the Government recently renewed the control order of AN without disclosing any further details of the case. The House of Lord’s decision can be found here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090610/af.pdf


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.

- 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.
20090715Tomorrow the High Court will once again consider the legality of control orders. The courts have slammed the control order regime on a number of occasions.Liberty response to claims UK 'outsourced torture'Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

“Complicity in torture is bad enough, but these allegations suggest the active orchestration of torture by the British authorities. Worse still, this isn’t a tale of UK agents led astray by their American counterparts but of our own services pulling the strings and letting the infamous ISI do the dirty work.”

Liberty believes that torture is never justified. The British government has a responsibility to ensure that its security services, and any other public bodies, are not complicit in torture in any way.




20090708Former shadow home secretary David Davis MP claimed today to have seen "compelling" evidence that British intelligence services have "outsourced torture".Former Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken MacDonald QC, joins with Liberty & Anti-Slavery International to push for slavery lawFormer DPP, Ken MacDonald QC, and Helen Mountfield, both of Matrix Chambers, have provided a Legal Opinion that there is a gap in existing UK law which is likely to place Britain in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Liberty and Anti-Slavery International are urgently pushing for a change in the law to stop servitude and forced labour cases falling through the gaps. For example, Liberty is representing a woman recently held in modern slavery in the UK. Despite managing to evade her captors and complain to police, nothing was done to investigate her case. Liberty believes this is because the lack of a specific law in this area leaves police uncertain of how to proceed and unsure of the chance of obtaining a conviction.

Ken MacDonald QC said:

“We do not imagine that any politician, of any party, would consider it unnecessary to have in place penal legislation which complies with the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 4 ECHR, and which provides redress to victims, and penalties for perpetrators of so grave a crime of abuse and oppression.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said:

“In an age when new criminal offences have flown out of Westminster like confetti, the lack of an effective anti-slavery law is a gaping hole in the protection of the vulnerable. We urge parliamentarians of all stripes to join together in supporting this amendment and honouring the tradition of William Wilberforce.”

Aidan McQuade Director of Anti-Slavery International said:

“It is inexcusable that in the 21st century holding somebody in slavery in the UK is not a criminal offence. Slavery is an undeniable reality and the thousands of people who find themselves in forced labour deserve justice and to see their abusers prosecuted.

“The UK led the world in the legal abolition of slavery. This House of Lords amendment would continue that historic commitment into the modern era.”

Contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. For a copy of Ken MacDonald QC and Helen Mountfield’s Legal Opinion and/or a copy of the amendment to be debated tomorrow (laid by Baroness Young) contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677.

2. Liberty and Anti-Slavery International’s joint briefing on this issue is available here: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy-09/joint-cte-stage-briefing-on-forced-labour-lords.pdf  

3. Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, provides that “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude”, or “be required to perform forced or compulsory labour”.

4. In a recent case at the European Court of Human rights (Siliadin v France) France was found to be in breach of Article 4 because it had not specifically enacted laws to outlaw servitude and forced labour. It is the contention of Liberty, Anti-slavery International and now also Ken MacDonald QC and Helen Mountfield that Britain would likewise be found in breach, if challenged.

5. Baroness Young (who has laid the forced labour amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill) is available for media interviews on this issue. Contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677 for more information.

20090708Parliament is due to debate an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill tomorrow that will make servitude and forced labour an offence in the UK.Liberty response to O'Connor Report on Policing ProtestThe police have a duty to facilitate peaceful protest.

Other positive findings are:

The displaying of identifying numerals should be a legal requirement.
- The need to understand that a certain level of inconvenience is part and parcel of peaceful dissent in a democracy.
- The need for a review of police training and tactics (including the use of shields and batons).
- The need to look at individual criminal behaviour rather than perceptions of the protest as a whole.

More worryingly:

- Insufficient analysis of the legitimacy and efficacy of “kettling”, which has become a police tactic of first resort.
- An ominous silence about the combative culture of the Territorial Support Group, the “force within the force” tasked with public order policing.

James Welch, legal director at Liberty, said:

“Her Majesty's inspector has made a swift and important contribution to the ongoing debate about the policing of protest in modern Britain. We welcome his finding that the police have a positive duty to facilitate peaceful protest and a common sense obligation not to make difficult situations worse.

However, this debate is only just beginning. The tactic of "kettling" large groups so that peaceful protesters and passers-by are trapped for hours alongside more troublesome elements exacerbates tensions and creates a risk to public safety. Further the very existence of the infamous TSG with its militaristic approach needs to be urgently reviewed.”

Contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677 or 07973 831 128


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The report from Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary is available here: http://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/docs/ap/

2. The right to protest peacefully is protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act (1998).

3. The tactic of ‘kettling’ (or ‘containing’ as it is referred to in the report) involves the corralling of large numbers of protesters and others for long periods of time. The lawfulness of this tactic is soon to be considered by the European Court of Human Rights. For more information contact Bridget Beale on 020 7378 3677.

4. The Independent Police Complaints Commission is currently investigating individual complaints against police officers at the G20 protests. Liberty has concerns about the ability of this body to return timely and transparent findings.

20090707In a report published today, HM Inspector of Constabulary, Denis O'Connor, calls for a human rights-based approach to policing protests. Liberty welcomes Mr O’Connor’s finding that the police have become too concerned with whether protesters have given formal prior notice, when the fundamental question should be whether they are peaceful.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.
'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;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.
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.
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.
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 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.27/08/10 Liberty demands extradition justicehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/27-08-10-liberty-demands-extradition-justice.shtml20100827http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/27-08-10-liberty-demands-extradition-justice.shtml19/08/10 Liberty responds to counter-terror review – end control orders, reduce pre-charge detention and make intercept evidence admissible in courthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/19-08-10-liberty-responds-to-counter-terror-review-a-end-control-orders-re.shtmlToday Liberty published "From 'War' to Law", its 137 page response to the Government counter-terror review.20100819http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/19-08-10-liberty-responds-to-counter-terror-review-a-end-control-orders-re.shtml02/08/10 Victory in school mum snooping casehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/02-08-10-victory-in-school-mum-snooping-case.shtmlToday the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) ruled unlawful Poole Borough Council’s surveillance of mum-of-three Jenny Paton and her family. 20100802http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/02-08-10-victory-in-school-mum-snooping-case.shtml25/07/10 Liberty warns MP who refuses to see veiled constituents of unlawful discriminationhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/25-07-10-liberty-warns-mp-who-refuses-to-see-veiled-constituents-of-unlawf.shtmlLiberty lawyers have written to Philip Hollobone MP warning him of potential legal action if he refuses to meet with constituents on the basis of their religious dress.20100725http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/25-07-10-liberty-warns-mp-who-refuses-to-see-veiled-constituents-of-unlawf.shtml13/07/10 Court in Jon Gaunt free speech case accepts 'Nazi' is legitimate political slanghttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/13-07-10-court-in-jon-gaunt-free-speech-case-accepts-nazi-is-legitimate-po.shtmlToday the radio talk show host Jon Gaunt lost his judicial review proceedings against Ofcom’s decision to uphold complaints about a heated interview between Mr Gaunt and a local politician.20100713http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/13-07-10-court-in-jon-gaunt-free-speech-case-accepts-nazi-is-legitimate-po.shtml13/07/10 Protest walk goes ahead with Liberty's supporthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/13-07-10-protest-walk-goes-ahead-with-liberty-s-support.shtmlA long-standing annual protest against the American military base at Menwith Hill went ahead on 4 July, despite an initial stance by police that they would no longer facilitate the event.20100713http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/13-07-10-protest-walk-goes-ahead-with-liberty-s-support.shtml13/07/10 Home Secretary invites Liberty to contribute to counter-terror reviewhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/13-07-10-home-secretary-invites-liberty-to-contribute-to-counter-terror-re.shtmlToday the Home Secretary gave further details about the review of counter-terrorism measures announced last month. The review will consider control orders, section 44 stop and search, pre-charge detention and targeted surveillance powers.20100713http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/13-07-10-home-secretary-invites-liberty-to-contribute-to-counter-terror-re.shtml08/07/10 Liberty welcomes demise of section 44 stop and search after long fight through Courtshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/08-07-10-liberty-welcomes-demise-of-section-44-stop-and-search-after-long-.shtmlThe Home Secretary today announced the suspension of the broad stop and search powers found in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.20100708http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/08-07-10-liberty-welcomes-demise-of-section-44-stop-and-search-after-long-.shtml06/07/10 Intelligence services commissioner to lead torture inquiryhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/06-07-10-intelligence-services-commissioner-to-lead-torture-inquiry.shtmlThe Prime Minister today announced an inquiry into concerns about collusion in torture by the British authorities during the War on Terror. He also announced the publication of guidance to the intelligence services on the interrogation and treatment of detainees held overseas.20100706http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/06-07-10-intelligence-services-commissioner-to-lead-torture-inquiry.shtml30/06/10 UK torture inquiry terms agreedhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/30-06-10-uk-torture-inquiry-terms-agreed.shtmlThe Government is expected to announce a judge-led inquiry into allegations of British complicity in the torture of terror suspects held overseas. 20100630http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/30-06-10-uk-torture-inquiry-terms-agreed.shtml30/06/10 Court of Human Rights rejects UK Government appeal over Section 44 stop and search powershttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/30-06-10-court-of-human-rights-rejects-uk-government-appeal-over-section-4.shtmlToday the European Court of Human Rights confirmed it has rejected the British government’s final appeal over section 44 stop and search powers.20100630http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/30-06-10-court-of-human-rights-rejects-uk-government-appeal-over-section-4.shtml24/06/10 An end to lengthy pre-charge detention and control orders?http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/24-06-10-an-end-to-lengthy-pre-charge-detention-and-control-orders-.shtmlToday the Home Secretary announced that the Government would seek to renew the 28 day pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects for six months.20100624http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/24-06-10-an-end-to-lengthy-pre-charge-detention-and-control-orders-.shtml14/06/10 Judicial review of Jon Gaunt's free speech challenge to Ofcom beginshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/14-06-10-judicial-review-of-jon-gaunt-s-free-speech-challenge-to-ofcom-beg.shtmlToday the judicial review hearing of Ofcom’s decision to uphold complaints against the radio talk show host Jon Gaunt begins in the High Court. Liberty, the human rights group, has intervened in the case because of its wider importance to free speech.20100614http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/14-06-10-judicial-review-of-jon-gaunt-s-free-speech-challenge-to-ofcom-beg.shtml10/06/10 Liberty renews calls for urgent overhaul as thousands are illegally stopped and searchedhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/10-06-10-liberty-renews-calls-for-urgent-overhaul-as-thousands-are-illegal.shtmlAn internal review by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism revealed that thousands of people have been illegally stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.20100610http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/10-06-10-liberty-renews-calls-for-urgent-overhaul-as-thousands-are-illegal.shtml28/05/10 Justice for victim of modern-day slaveryhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/28-05-10-justice-for-victim-of-modern-day-slavery.shtmlLiberty today welcomed a jury’s decision to convict the employer of a Liberty client who had been subjected to forced domestic labour for over two and half years.20100528http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/28-05-10-justice-for-victim-of-modern-day-slavery.shtml27/05/10 ID Cards to be scrapped - but must be scrapped for allhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/27-05-10-id-cards-to-be-scrapped-but-must-be-scrapped-for-all.shtmlLiberty today welcomed the new Government’s Identity Documents Bill which will repeal the much criticised ID Cards Act. The organisation has campaigned against ID cards since they were first suggested by then Home Secretary David Blunkett in 2001.20100527http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/27-05-10-id-cards-to-be-scrapped-but-must-be-scrapped-for-all.shtml24/05/10 A Queen's Speech in new liberty language?http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/24-05-10-a-queen-s-speech-in-new-liberty-language-.shtmlToday Liberty responded optimistically to many of the proposals rumoured to be announced in tomorrow’s Queen’s Speech.20100524http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/24-05-10-a-queen-s-speech-in-new-liberty-language-.shtml21/05/10 New Government announces long awaited inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torturehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/21-05-10-new-government-announces-long-awaited-inquiry-into-allegations-of.shtmlToday human rights group Liberty welcomed the new Government’s hugely significant announcement of an inquiry into alleged British complicity in torture. 20100521http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/21-05-10-new-government-announces-long-awaited-inquiry-into-allegations-of.shtml20/05/10 Liberty welcomes Court of Appeal judgment in favour of BA workers' right to strikehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/20-05-10-liberty-welcomes-court-of-appeal-judgment-in-favour-of-ba-workers.shtmlToday the Court of Appeal overturned the injunction banning British Airways staff from striking.20100520http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/20-05-10-liberty-welcomes-court-of-appeal-judgment-in-favour-of-ba-workers.shtml20/05/2010 Liberty responds to Electoral Commission reporthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/20-05-2010-liberty-responds-to-electoral-commission-report.shtmlOn election day hundreds of people were left queuing outside polling stations across England. The Electoral Commission has today published a report following an investigation into the problems and the way they were handled.20100520http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/20-05-2010-liberty-responds-to-electoral-commission-report.shtml18/05/10 Terror case poses first test to new coalition on rights and freedomshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/18-05-10-terror-case-poses-first-test-to-new-coalition-on-rights-and-freed.shtmlToday the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) ruled that two men allegedly involved in a terror plot could not be deported to Pakistan. Mr. Justice Mitting said that they could not be returned as Pakistan had ‘a long…history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained’.20100518http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/18-05-10-terror-case-poses-first-test-to-new-coalition-on-rights-and-freed.shtml18/05/10 Liberty responds to reports of commission on Human Rights Acthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/18-05-10-liberty-responds-to-reports-of-commission-on-human-rights-act.shtmlLiberty response to reports by the BBC about the creation of a commission to look into the workings of the Human Rights Act.20100518http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/18-05-10-liberty-responds-to-reports-of-commission-on-human-rights-act.shtml14/05/10 Liberty backs gay couple in B&B discrimination casehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/14-05-10-liberty-backs-gay-couple-in-b-b-discrimination-case.shtmlLiberty today confirmed that it is acting for Michael Black and John Morgan, the gay couple refused accommodation at a Berkshire Bed and Breakfast in March of this year.20100514http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/14-05-10-liberty-backs-gay-couple-in-b-b-discrimination-case.shtml12/05/10 Liberty response to formation of new Governmenthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/12-05-10-liberty-response-to-formation-of-new-government.shtmlLiberty comment as the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition cabinet is announced.20100512http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/12-05-10-liberty-response-to-formation-of-new-government.shtml12/05/10 Liberty responds to Lib-Con coalition agreementhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/12-05-10-liberty-responds-to-lib-con-coalition-agreement.shtmlLiberty today welcomed the Lib-Con coalition’s proposals on civil liberties but urged the new Government to defend the Human Rights Act and remember both parties’ opposition to the control orders regime.20100512http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/12-05-10-liberty-responds-to-lib-con-coalition-agreement.shtml07/05/2010 Voting chaos: Liberty investigateshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/07-05-2010-voting-chaos-liberty-investigates.shtmlLiberty announced today that it is looking into allegations that hundreds of potential voters were disenfranchised amid chaos at polling stations around the country. 20100507http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/07-05-2010-voting-chaos-liberty-investigates.shtml06/05/10 1000th prospective MP milestone for asylum pledgehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/06-05-10-1000th-prospective-mp-milestone-for-asylum-pledge.shtmlToday Liberty announces the 1000th parliamentary candidate has signed up to the organisation’s asylum election pledge. By signing the pledge, which is promoted by Liberty, the Refugee Council and the Scottish Refugee Council, candidates agree to ‘never play fast and loose with the proud tradition of a nation that must always offer succour to those in genuine fear of persecution’.20100506http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/06-05-10-1000th-prospective-mp-milestone-for-asylum-pledge.shtml04/05/10 Binyam Mohamed: Torture and secrecy – Court of Appeal rules against Government againhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/04-05-10-binyam-mohamed-torture-and-secrecy-a-court-of-appeal-rules-agains.shtmlToday, two months after the Court of Appeal’s explosive judgment concerning knowledge by the UK authorities of Binyam Mohamed’s torture in US custody, the Court has once again rejected a Government attempt to subvert open justice.20100504http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/04-05-10-binyam-mohamed-torture-and-secrecy-a-court-of-appeal-rules-agains.shtml26/04/10 Nearly £3,500 raised for Liberty's new home by marathon runnershttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/26-04-10-nearly-3-500-raised-for-liberty-s-new-home-by-marathon-runners.shtmlTwo people have gone the extra mile to help us raise funds for a much-needed new office. Kate Watkin and Lee Rodwell ran 26.2 miles around the streets of London on Sunday 25 April and raised £3,367 for the Civil Liberties Trust.20100426http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/26-04-10-nearly-3-500-raised-for-liberty-s-new-home-by-marathon-runners.shtml22/04/10 'There is no place for racism in modern British politics' Party leaders agree on importance of refugee protectionhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/22-04-10-there-is-no-place-for-racism-in-modern-british-politics-party-lea.shtmlToday Liberty, the Refugee Council and the Scottish Refugee Council announced that Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and hundreds of other parliamentary candidates have signed up to the organisations’ asylum election pledge.20100422http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/22-04-10-there-is-no-place-for-racism-in-modern-british-politics-party-lea.shtml09/04/10 DNA database debate: truth and illusionhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/09-04-10-dna-database-debate-truth-and-illusion.shtmlToday Liberty’s director responded to suggestions that the case of Sally Anne Bowman was only solved by holding the DNA of unconvicted individuals on the database. This could not be further from the truth20100409http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/09-04-10-dna-database-debate-truth-and-illusion.shtml08/04/10 Liberty response as Conservatives drop opposition to Crime and Security Billhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/08-04-10-liberty-response-as-conservatives-drop-opposition-to-crime-and-se.shtmlToday the Tories dropped their opposition to the Crime and Security Bill, but pledged to amend the DNA database provisions it contains if they win the General Election. 20100408http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/08-04-10-liberty-response-as-conservatives-drop-opposition-to-crime-and-se.shtml22/03/10 Open letter from politicians and human rights groups calls for independent torture inquiryhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/22-03-10-open-letter-from-politicians-and-human-rights-groups-calls-for-in.shtmlLiberty has joined forces with Amnesty International UK, Human Rights Watch, Reprieve and the all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition to call for an independent inquiry into the UK’s involvement in torture.20100322http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/22-03-10-open-letter-from-politicians-and-human-rights-groups-calls-for-in.shtml18/03/10 Liberty response to Foreign Office reporthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/18-03-10-liberty-response-to-foreign-office-report.shtmlIn a report released today the Foreign Office said that Britain must continue to work with international intelligence agencies in the fight against terrorism, including agencies in countries which abuse or torture detainees.20100318http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/18-03-10-liberty-response-to-foreign-office-report.shtml18/03/10 Liberty Director challenges security services’ dismissal of torture scandal exposure in lecturehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/18-03-10-liberty-director-challenges-security-servicesa-dismissal-of-tortu.shtmlIn a speech at the old university of the Director General of MI5, Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, will hit back at the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and other critics of lawyers and campaigners who have exposed the torture scandal.20100318http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/18-03-10-liberty-director-challenges-security-servicesa-dismissal-of-tortu.shtmlBryantinquest abandonedhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/bryantinquest-abandoned.shtmlThe inquest into the death of Naomi Bryant – killed in 2005 by convicted sex offender Anthony Rice – was today abandoned as new information about public authorities’ knowledge of the killer was revealed. 20100302http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/bryantinquest-abandoned.shtml01/03/10 Will Parliament allow War on Terror shame to continue?http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/01-03-10-will-parliament-allow-war-on-terror-shame-to-continue-.shtmlThe House of Commons will today debate whether to renew control orders – the unsafe and unfair system for dealing with terror suspects outside the normal rule of law.20100301http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/01-03-10-will-parliament-allow-war-on-terror-shame-to-continue-.shtml26/02/10 Torture cover-up must end with public inquiryhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/26-02-10-torture-cover-up-must-end-with-public-inquiry.shtmlToday the Court of Appeal decided to stick by criticisms of the security services contained in ‘paragraph 168’ of Lord Neuberger’s judgment in the Binyam Mohamed torture case.20100226http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/26-02-10-torture-cover-up-must-end-with-public-inquiry.shtml22/02/10 Murder inquest secured by Human Rights Act opens todayhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/22-02-10-murder-inquest-secured-by-human-rights-act-opens-today.shtmlAn inquest begins today into the death of Naomi Bryant – killed in August 2005 by Anthony Rice, a violent convicted sex offender. Liberty successfully used the protections within the Human Rights Act to argue that an inquest must be held into the events leading up to Naomi’s death, and also that the inquest itself must be as wide-ranging as possible.20100222http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/22-02-10-murder-inquest-secured-by-human-rights-act-opens-today.shtml12/02/10 Court of Appeal finds against BA employee banned from wearing crosshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/12-02-10-court-of-appeal-finds-against-ba-employee-banned-from-wearing-cro.shtmlToday Liberty expressed disappointment with the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Nadia Eweida, the British Airways check-in employee banned from wearing a small cross around her neck.20100212http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/12-02-10-court-of-appeal-finds-against-ba-employee-banned-from-wearing-cro.shtml10/02/10 Foreign Secretary loses torture suppression casehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/10-02-10-foreign-secretary-loses-torture-suppression-case.shtmlToday the Court of Appeal ordered the publication of 7 paragraphs of a High Court judgment summarising the UK authorities' knowledge of Binyam Mohammed's torture whilst in US custody. The Foreign Secretary had fought for these embarrassing paragraphs to remain secret.20100210http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/10-02-10-foreign-secretary-loses-torture-suppression-case.shtml01/02/10 Unsafe and unfair - discredited control order regime up for renewal againhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/01-02-10-unsafe-and-unfair-discredited-control-order-regime-up-for-renewal.shtmlToday the draft order to renew control order legislation was laid before Parliament by the Home Secretary. The annual report on control orders by Lord Carlile, the reviewer of terrorism legislation, was also published today.20100201http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/01-02-10-unsafe-and-unfair-discredited-control-order-regime-up-for-renewal.shtml27/01/10 Permission granted in Jon Gaunt’s free speech challenge to Ofcomhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/27-01-10-permission-granted-in-jon-gaunta-s-free-speech-challenge-to-ofcom.shtmlToday the High Court granted permission for a judicial review of Ofcom’s decision to uphold complaints against the radio talk show host Jon Gaunt.20100127http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/27-01-10-permission-granted-in-jon-gaunta-s-free-speech-challenge-to-ofcom.shtml27/01/10 Liberty support "shock jock" Jon Gaunt's free speech challenge to Ofcomhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/27-01-10-liberty-support-shock-jock-jon-gaunt-s-free-speech-challenge-to-o.shtmlToday the High Court will hear a judicial review application brought by sacked “shock jock” Jon Gaunt against Ofcom. Gaunt is bringing the challenge after Ofcom upheld complaints against him under the broadcasting code.20100127http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/27-01-10-liberty-support-shock-jock-jon-gaunt-s-free-speech-challenge-to-o.shtml19/01/2010 Overwhelming support as case of BA employee banned from wearing cross is heard in Court of Appealhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/19-01-2010-overwhelming-support-as-case-of-ba-employee-banned-from-wearing.shtmlToday Liberty will represent Nadia Eweida, the Christian BA check-in employee banned from wearing a small cross on a chain, as her case is heard in the Court of Appeal. A Liberty poll of UK Christians, released today, shows overwhelming support not just for Ms Eweida’s case but also for the freedom of all faiths to manifest their religion.20100119http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/19-01-2010-overwhelming-support-as-case-of-ba-employee-banned-from-wearing.shtml12/01/10 Liberty wins landmark stop and search case in Court of Human Rightshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/12-01-10-liberty-wins-landmark-stop-and-search-case-in-court-of-human-righ.shtmlToday the Court of Human Rights ruled that section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (the broad police power for stop and search without suspicion) violates the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights.20100112http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/12-01-10-liberty-wins-landmark-stop-and-search-case-in-court-of-human-righ.shtml04/01/10 Liberty response to increased airport security proposalshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/04-01-10-liberty-response-to-increased-airport-security-proposals.shtmlIt is right that the foiled Christmas terror attempt on a plane bound for the US should have prompted fresh scrutiny of airport security, but any such examination must learn the lessons of the recent past.20100104http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2010/04-01-10-liberty-response-to-increased-airport-security-proposals.shtml15/12/09 Council struck common sense balance between equal treatment and freedom of consciencehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/15-12-09-council-struck-common-sense-balance-between-equal-treatment-and-f.shtmlToday the Court of Appeal ruled that Islington council was right to expect employee Lillian Ladele to perform same-sex civil partnerships as part of her role as registrar.20091215http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/15-12-09-council-struck-common-sense-balance-between-equal-treatment-and-f.shtml11/12/09 Human rights leaders honoured at Liberty and Justice Human Rights Awardshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/11-12-09-human-rights-leaders-honoured-at-liberty-and-justice-human-rights.shtmlLawyers and campaigners were among the winners who were celebrated for their ground-breaking and courageous work at the Liberty / JUSTICE Human Rights Awards last night. The awards are held annually to recognise the outstanding contribution made by individuals and organisations to further the cause of human rights.20091211http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/11-12-09-human-rights-leaders-honoured-at-liberty-and-justice-human-rights.shtml10/12/09 The truth about Britain's valueshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/10-12-09-the-truth-about-britain-s-values.shtmlA poll released today by Liberty shows the British public’s continued support for human rights. 96% believe it is important that there is a law that protects rights and freedoms in Britain.20091210http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/10-12-09-the-truth-about-britain-s-values.shtml01/12/09 High Court condemns use of secret evidencehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/01-12-09-high-court-condemns-use-of-secret-evidence.shtmlLiberty today welcomed a ruling from the High Court that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of secret evidence. The ruling, which said that bail applicants must be given an irreducible minimum of information about the case against them, also rejected Government claims that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) was immune from judicial review.20091201http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/01-12-09-high-court-condemns-use-of-secret-evidence.shtml27/11/09 Home Secretary fails vulnerable hackerhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/27-11-09-home-secretary-fails-vulnerable-hacker.shtmlHome Secretary Alan Johnson stated last night that the Government would not intervene to block Gary McKinnon's extradition. 20091127http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/27-11-09-home-secretary-fails-vulnerable-hacker.shtml25/11/09 Liberty welcomes O'Connor protest policing reporthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/25-11-09-liberty-welcomes-o-connor-protest-policing-report.shtmlDenis O'Connor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, today published the second part of his report on public order policing tactics, saying that police should remember the founding principles of British policing but adapt methods to modern protests.20091125http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/25-11-09-liberty-welcomes-o-connor-protest-policing-report.shtml19/11/09 Jenny Willott MP and Liberty hold DNA clinic in Cardiffhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/19-11-09-jenny-willott-mp-and-liberty-hold-dna-clinic-in-cardiff.shtmlToday Wales’ first ‘DNA clinic’ launches in Cardiff, giving free legal assistance to people whose profiles have been unfairly added to the DNA database. Jenny Willott, Liberal Democrat MP for Cardiff Central, along with lawyers from human rights group Liberty will provide help and advice to those who want their DNA profiles removed from the national database.20091119http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/19-11-09-jenny-willott-mp-and-liberty-hold-dna-clinic-in-cardiff.shtml11/11/09 Government announces innocents will continue to be held on DNA databasehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/11-11-09-government-announces-innocents-will-continue-to-be-held-on-dna-da.shtmlDespite widespread opposition, the Home Office announced today plans to retain innocents DNA for six years. Innocent 16 and 17 years olds arrested for a serious crime will be treated the same as adults. All other children arrested but not convicted of any offence will have their profiles held for 3 years.20091111http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/11-11-09-government-announces-innocents-will-continue-to-be-held-on-dna-da.shtml05/11/09 Secretive surveillance powers openly challenged for the first timehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/05-11-09-secretive-surveillance-powers-openly-challenged-for-the-first-tim.shtmlA hearing examining the controversial use of covert surveillance by a local authority begins today. This landmark case is the first time these powers – granted to local authorities under the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) – will be challenged at an open hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.20091105http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/05-11-09-secretive-surveillance-powers-openly-challenged-for-the-first-tim.shtml04/11/09 House of Lords battle to stop future Gary McKinnonshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/04-11-09-house-of-lords-battle-to-stop-future-gary-mckinnons.shtmlToday the House of Lords will have the opportunity to prevent situations like Gary McKinnon's reoccurring. An amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill would allow British judges to bar extradition if a significant part of the crime happened in the UK.20091104http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/04-11-09-house-of-lords-battle-to-stop-future-gary-mckinnons.shtml30/10/09 Liberty, Inquest and Justice hold parliamentary meeting as opposition to secret inquests mountshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/30-10-09-liberty-inquest-and-justice-hold-parliamentary-meeting-as-opposit.shtmlAt 16.00 on Monday 2 November in Committee room 16 Liberty, Inquest and Justice will hold a parliamentary meeting into plans to hold inquests in secret. 20091030http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/30-10-09-liberty-inquest-and-justice-hold-parliamentary-meeting-as-opposit.shtml29/10/09 Supreme Court rebalances law on enhanced CRB disclosureshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/29-10-09-supreme-court-rebalances-law-on-enhanced-crb-disclosures.shtmlToday the Supreme Court ruled that much greater consideration of the private lives of job applicants is required when enhanced CRB checks are made.20091029http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/29-10-09-supreme-court-rebalances-law-on-enhanced-crb-disclosures.shtml28/10/09 Government concede modern day slavery legal gaphttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/28-10-09-government-concede-modern-day-slavery-legal-gap.shtmlThe Government today conceded the need to criminalise forced labour and servitude. Parliament was expected to vote this afternoon on an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill that would make servitude and forced labour an offence in the UK for the first time.20091028http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/28-10-09-government-concede-modern-day-slavery-legal-gap.shtml23/10/09 Liberty comment on BNP appearance on Question Timehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/23-10-09-liberty-comment-on-bnp-appearance-on-question-time.shtmlHuman rights group Liberty responded to the hatred exposed by British National Party leader Nick Griffin on BBC1's Question Time last night.20091023http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/23-10-09-liberty-comment-on-bnp-appearance-on-question-time.shtml23/10/09 Crucial vote expected on Monday: Will modern slavery be outlawed?http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/23-10-09-crucial-vote-expected-on-monday-will-modern-slavery-be-outlawed-.shtmlParliament is expected to vote on an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill on Monday that, if passed, will make servitude and forced labour an offence in the UK for the first time.20091023http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/23-10-09-crucial-vote-expected-on-monday-will-modern-slavery-be-outlawed-.shtml22/10/09 DPP defends Human Rights Acthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/22-10-09-dpp-defends-human-rights-act.shtmlDirector of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer has said he wants to "lay bare the lie that suggests the Human Rights Act is a criminals' charter" and show that it does protect the rights of victims. 20091022http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/22-10-09-dpp-defends-human-rights-act.shtml21/10/09 Secret inquests defeated in the Lordshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/21-10-09-secret-inquests-defeated-in-the-lords.shtmlIn a vote today the House of Lords threw out clauses buried in the Coroners and Justice Bill which would allow for an inquest to be suspended and a 'secret inquiry' held in its place.20091021http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/21-10-09-secret-inquests-defeated-in-the-lords.shtml20/10/09 Government attempts to revive secret inquestshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/20-10-09-government-attempts-to-revive-secret-inquests.shtmlDespite a public climbdown in May, the Government intends to go ahead with plans to hold investigations into controversial deaths in secret, human rights group Liberty said today. Clauses buried in the Coroners and Justice Bill allow for an inquest to be suspended and a ‘secret inquiry’ held in its place.20091020http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/20-10-09-government-attempts-to-revive-secret-inquests.shtml19/10/09 Sensible and tactical retreat by Government on DNAhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/19-10-09-sensible-and-tactical-retreat-by-government-on-dna.shtmlThe Home Office announced today that the clauses on DNA retention will be dropped from the Policing and Crime Bill and reconsidered after the Queen’s Speech. The clauses provided a regulation power that would have allowed sweeping retention of innocents’ DNA to continue.20091019http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/19-10-09-sensible-and-tactical-retreat-by-government-on-dna.shtml16/10/09 Liberty condemns 'rotten' extradition lawshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/16-10-09-liberty-condemns-rotten-extradition-laws.shtmlBritain's unfair extradition agreements have failed to protect Gary McKinnon, who is now facing 60 years in a US jail for hacking into Pentagon and NASA systems from his home in London.20091016http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/16-10-09-liberty-condemns-rotten-extradition-laws.shtml12/10/09 Sir Hugh Orde to speak on peaceful protesthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/12-10-09-sir-hugh-orde-to-speak-on-peaceful-protest.shtmlThe President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, will take the same stage today as Shami Chakrabarti, John Kampfner and Peter Tatchell. They are speaking at Protest! Talking About Your Right to Speak Out – a free event at London’s South Bank University encouraging and enabling students to become involved in activism.20091012http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/12-10-09-sir-hugh-orde-to-speak-on-peaceful-protest.shtml05/10/09 New Tory book in support of the Human Rights Acthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/05-10-09-new-tory-book-in-support-of-the-human-rights-act.shtmlConservative parliamentary candidate Jesse Norman and political columnist Peter Oborne today launch ‘Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative case for the Human Rights Act’. The short book, published by Liberty in support of the Common Values campaign, recommends that the Conservatives reclaim their historic position as a party of British liberty and the rule of law by dropping their opposition to the Human Rights Act.20091005http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/05-10-09-new-tory-book-in-support-of-the-human-rights-act.shtml29/09/09 Partnership between Liberty and young racing driverhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/29-09-09-partnership-between-liberty-and-young-racing-driver.shtmlLiberty’s logo will grace the car of 16-year-old Alice Powell, a racing driver and the only female in Formula Renault UK. Alice is a member of the Manor Competition team and the youngest ever female driver in the Michelin Formula Renault UK Championship – the 150mph single-seater race series which is a stepping stone to Formula One.20090929http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/29-09-09-partnership-between-liberty-and-young-racing-driver.shtml24/09/09 British Airways attempts to force freedom of conscience case out of courthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/24-09-09-british-airways-attempts-to-force-freedom-of-conscience-case-out-.shtmlToday Liberty will represent Nadia Eweida, the Christian BA check-in employee banned from wearing a small cross on a chain, in a hearing to protect Ms Eweida from the risk of having to pay BA’s massive legal costs if she pursues her case in the Court of Appeal. BA has estimated its costs for the appeal to be at least £58,000.20090924http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/24-09-09-british-airways-attempts-to-force-freedom-of-conscience-case-out-.shtml24/09/2009 Diane Abbott MP and Liberty hold DNA clinic in Hackneyhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/24-09-2009-diane-abbott-mp-and-liberty-hold-dna-clinic-in-hackney.shtmlToday the country’s first ‘DNA clinic’ launches in Hackney, giving free legal assistance to young people whose profiles have been unfairly added to the DNA database. Diane Abbott and Liberty lawyers will provide help and advice to those who want their DNA profiles removed from the national database.20090924http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/24-09-2009-diane-abbott-mp-and-liberty-hold-dna-clinic-in-hackney.shtml16/09/09 Government digs in heels over unsafe and unfair control order regimehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/16-09-09-government-digs-in-heels-over-unsafe-and-unfair-control-order-reg.shtmlLiberty today expressed bitter disappointment at the Government’s continued support for the much condemned system of control orders. The Home Secretary reiterated the importance of the regime and said current control orders will be looked at case by case in a bid to comply with the recent damning House of Lords judgment.20090916http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/16-09-09-government-digs-in-heels-over-unsafe-and-unfair-control-order-reg.shtml27/08/09 'Don't let Gary go' American Civil Liberties Union joins calls to stop unfair extraditionhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/27-08-09-don-t-let-gary-go-american-civil-liberties-union-joins-calls-to-s.shtmlThe American Civil Liberties Union today wrote to the Foreign Secretary David Miliband expressing their concern about extradition arrangements between Britain and America.20090827http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/27-08-09-don-t-let-gary-go-american-civil-liberties-union-joins-calls-to-s.shtml20/08/09 Liberty response to removal of Conservative MP's record from DNA databasehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/20-08-09-liberty-response-to-removal-of-conservative-mp-s-record-from-dna-.shtmlPolice have agreed to delete Conservative MP Damian Green's DNA profile, but under government proposals hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be kept on the national DNA database.20090820http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/20-08-09-liberty-response-to-removal-of-conservative-mp-s-record-from-dna-.shtml20/08/09 Diane Abbott MP and Liberty to hold DNA clinic in Hackneyhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/20-08-09-diane-abbott-mp-and-liberty-to-hold-dna-clinic-in-hackney.shtmlLiberty and Diane Abbott announced today that from September they will be holding a series of DNA clinics in Hackney to help those who have had their DNA retained unfairly.20090820http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/20-08-09-diane-abbott-mp-and-liberty-to-hold-dna-clinic-in-hackney.shtml09/08/09 Liberty calls for independent inquiry into torture collusion claimshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/09-08-09-liberty-calls-for-independent-inquiry-into-torture-collusion-clai.shtmlDemands for an inquiry into possible British complicity in overseastorture mounted this weekend despite a public denial by ministers.20090809http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/09-08-09-liberty-calls-for-independent-inquiry-into-torture-collusion-clai.shtml04/08/2009 Liberty welcomes JCHR’s call for inquiry into UK complicity in torturehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/04-08-2009-liberty-welcomes-jchr-s-call-for-inquiry-into-uk-complicity-in-.shtmlThe Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights today called for an independent inquiry into UK complicity in torture and accused ministers of refusing to give full answers to its questions. It also critcised the Governments accountability on security and intelligence issues as ‘woefully deficient’.20090804http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/04-08-2009-liberty-welcomes-jchr-s-call-for-inquiry-into-uk-complicity-in-.shtml31/07/09 Liberty condemns High Court extradition decisionhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/31-07-09-liberty-condemns-high-court-extradition-decision.shtmlHuman rights group Liberty today condemned the High Court decision that Gary McKinnon’s extradition must go ahead. Gary McKinnon, who has Asperger’s syndrome, has been charged with hacking into the US Pentagon and NASA systems between 1999 and 2002, an offence which was committed from his computer at home in London.20090731http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/31-07-09-liberty-condemns-high-court-extradition-decision.shtml31/07/09 Control orders: Government says ‘heads we win; tails you lose’http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/31-07-09-control-orders-government-says-a-heads-we-win-tails-you-losea-.shtmlToday the High Court revoked the first control order since the damning House of Lords decision in June. However, in a telling example of the Kafkaesque nature of the scheme, the Home Secretary presented a new control order to begin as soon as the current unlawful order ceases.20090731http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/31-07-09-control-orders-government-says-a-heads-we-win-tails-you-losea-.shtml30/07/09 Another Home Secretary; another ID card launch - as public support for the scheme sinkshttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/30-07-09-another-home-secretary-another-id-card-launch-as-public-support-f.shtmlOn the day that the Home Office re-launches the ID card scheme for the second time in ten months, a new Liberty-YouGov opinion poll demonstrates how public support for ID cards and the National Identity register is plummeting.20090730http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/30-07-09-another-home-secretary-another-id-card-launch-as-public-support-f.shtml29/07/09 Who cares about your privacy? Liberty joins forces with filmmaker to highlight dangers of ID card schemehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/29-07-09-who-cares-about-your-privacy-liberty-joins-forces-with-filmmaker-.shtmlLiberty, as part of its ‘Common Values’ campaign, will today release a powerful short film by graphic designer and filmmaker Will MacNeil about the threat to our personal privacy from the National Identity Register.20090729http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/29-07-09-who-cares-about-your-privacy-liberty-joins-forces-with-filmmaker-.shtml23/07/09 Liberty condemns extradition of Andrew Symeouhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/23-07-09-liberty-condemns-extradition-of-andrew-symeou.shtmlToday 20 year old student Andrew Symeou will be extradited to Greece without even basic evidence being shown to a UK judge. The evidence against Andrew is widely held to be seriously flawed yet he will be extradited with no opportunity for a British court to consider whether there is any case to answer.20090723http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/23-07-09-liberty-condemns-extradition-of-andrew-symeou.shtml15/07/09 Control Orders in court once morehttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/15-07-09-control-orders-in-court-once-more.shtmlTomorrow the High Court will once again consider the legality of control orders. The courts have slammed the control order regime on a number of occasions.20090715http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/15-07-09-control-orders-in-court-once-more.shtml08/07/09 Liberty response to claims UK 'outsourced torture'http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/08-07-09-liberty-response-to-claims-uk-outsourced-torture-.shtmlFormer shadow home secretary David Davis MP claimed today to have seen "compelling" evidence that British intelligence services have "outsourced torture".20090708http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/08-07-09-liberty-response-to-claims-uk-outsourced-torture-.shtml08/07/09 Ken MacDonald QC, joins with Liberty & Anti-Slavery International to push for slavery lawhttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/08-07-09-ken-macdonald-qc-joins-with-liberty-anti-slavery-international-to.shtmlParliament is due to debate an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill tomorrow that will make servitude and forced labour an offence in the UK.20090708http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/08-07-09-ken-macdonald-qc-joins-with-liberty-anti-slavery-international-to.shtml07/07/2009 Liberty response to O'Connor Report on Policing Protesthttp://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/07-07-2009-liberty-response-to-o-connor-report-on-policing-protest.shtmlIn a report published today, HM Inspector of Constabulary, Denis O'Connor, calls for a human rights-based approach to policing protests. Liberty welcomes Mr O’Connor’s finding that the police have become too concerned with whether protesters have given formal prior notice, when the fundamental question should be whether they are peaceful.20090707http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2009/07-07-2009-liberty-response-to-o-connor-report-on-policing-protest.shtml01/07/09 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 '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-.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.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 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.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-.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.shtml