Civil Liberties and Human Rights.  
  
 
 
 
 
 

Civil Liberties and Human Rights

Taking liberties part 2

Tony Blair launches an unprecedented assault today on the legal and political establishment, accusing it of being 'out of touch' with the people - and pledges new moves to 'hassle, harry and hound' suspected criminals from Britain.

In a passionate public exchange of emails with Observer columnist Henry Porter, the Prime Minister vigorously defends his stance on civil liberties and sketches out a new faultline in British politics over individual freedoms, crossing the traditional divide between right and left.

Admitting frankly that some of his own party as well as many Tories and the Liberal Democrats are ranged against him, he insists nonetheless that he is on the side of popular opinion and will not retreat, adding: 'I truly believe they are out of touch with their own voters.'

Critics such as Porter or Lord Steyn, the ex-law lord who recently accused his government of authoritarian tendencies and creating 'oppressive' immigration laws, had respectable motives but 'the practical effect of following the course you set out is a loss of civil liberties for the majority,' Blair concludes.

He outlines controversial new steps, ranging from seizing assets from suspected drug dealers - which could see anyone stopped with more than £1,000 having the money confiscated - to draconian new restrictions on the movements of those suspected of involv-ement in organised crime.

Even if they are not convicted of a crime and there is insufficient evidence to try them, suspects could be banned from associating with certain individuals or travelling to certain places, in order to disrupt trades such as human trafficking.

Blair's approach, to be fleshed out in a major debate about Labour's future after May's local elections, reflects a growing cross-party conviction that liberty is the new battleground for British politics.

Last week senior Tories launched a new grouping, Conservative Liberty Forum, with the blessing of David Cameron, which will debate issues ranging from CCTV to anti-terror legislation, and advise his policy review on fresh ideas to promote liberty.

'This will be one of the big issues for the next 10 years. It fits well with the new Conservative party and it's rediscovering a lot of Conservative tradition,' said Damian Green, the party's immigration spokesman and one of the group's supporters. 'It's a genuine divide between the parties: New Labour has now taken the view that if something serves the interests of the police and the security services, we should do it.'

Labour strategists, however, believe the Tories' reinvention has set Cameron adrift from public opinion: they were thrilled last week by newspapers unfavourably contrasting his eco-friendly trip to the Arctic with the Prime Minister meeting pensioners for tea. 'Tony Blair believes the political and media establishment are completely out of touch with where the public are on these issues and it's during election campaigns that that is brought home to politicians on the doorsteps,' said a Downing Street source.

'He wants to reopen the debate. David Cameron and Menzies Campbell are on different ground to him on this - and it's an area where the Tories, through having to take up positions to appeal to new people, seem to be losing the plot.'

Today, also writing in The Observer, leading Tory the Earl of Onslow writes an open letter to Cameron demanding his leader take a much more active role in defending what the peer describes as threatened British liberties.

In the exchange with Porter, Blair admits measures such as the antisocial behaviour laws have 'disturbed the normal legal process' but argues that previously police were not prosecuting over such crimes: 'Where these powers are being used, the law-abiding no longer live in fear of the lawless.'

He defended controversial action on asylum and immigration as necessary to prevent racists exploiting the issues.

And he said Steyn's criticism, in a lecture earlier this year, showed 'how out of touch much of the political and legal establishment is today', adding that he remains determined to go further down the same road: 'I would widen the police powers to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers, the cars they drive round in... I would impose restrictions on those suspected of being involved in organised crime. In fact I would generally harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country.'

Plans are being drawn up for a super-strength variant of the anti-social behaviour order, for those suspected of involvement in organised crime such as drug smuggling or sex trafficking.

Suspects would be forbidden from associating with accomplices or visiting certain places on pain of jail, restricting their liberty in an unprecedented way. Such civil orders can be obtained with less proof than a court conviction.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, will use a lecture to the London School of Economics tomorrow to counter what he will describe as 'the myth' that Labour has assumed police state powers.

Critics cite examples such as a new law forbidding demonstrations outside Parliament without prior police permission. Clarke is expected to argue that freedom is alive and kicking, with 157 demonstrations held there since last August.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
     

Liberty Policy Director Gareth Crossman said:

"The Extradition Act 2003 undermines longstanding safeguards against unfair removal and unfortunately appears to be more about politics than law.”

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

NOTES TO EDITORS

In October 2006, Liberty, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Bar Human Rights Council, Justice, Gareth Peirce and others unsuccessfully sought Parliamentary support for a law to provide greater protection for British citizens who may be extradited to face criminal charges abroad.

Liberty intervened in the case Government of the United States of America v Bermingham, Mulgrew and Darby, to argue that removal to the United States would engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to respect for a private and family life. Liberty argued that the interference with family life caused by removal to the United States must be disproportionate if shown to be unnecessary through the ability to dispose of the case to the United Kingdom. The three were sent to the USA in July 2006.

Home Office statistics show that the US government has made 47 extradition requests since January 2004. The UK government has made 12 such requests of the US.

Liberty Briefing- The Extradition Treaty 2003:

The UK's extradition laws have been radically overhauled in recent years. The Extradition Act 2003 created a system of fast track processing of extradition applications. This means that British citizens can be removed from the UK to many jurisdictions without the need for a court to hear that there is any evidence against them. The United States is one country where the fast track process has been introduced. However, Liberty does not think that debate over extradition should focus on the US and the non reciprocal nature of our extradition procedures as this might allow principled debate to be construed as anti Americanism. In any case, summary extradition should not take place from any state.

Liberty does not believe anyone should be removed from the United Kingdom without a British Court being satisfied that there is evidence. When Liberty argued this during the passage of the Extradition Bill the government responded that the removal of safeguard would be balanced by the introduction of a protection that no-one would be removed from the UK if doing so would breach their human rights.

When extradition proceeding were taken against the Natwest 3, Liberty intervened in the High Court. We argued that this human rights protection meant that if a case could be tried in the United Kingdom, it would breach rights to a family life if someone were taken overseas. No-one should face the prospects of being held in an overseas prison awaiting trial, away from family and friends, if they can face trial in the UK. The growing international and multi-jurisdictional nature of the criminal law means that cases of this type will become increasing common.

Liberty also argued that the positive duties imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 should require the prosecuting authorities to take steps to see if prosecution were possible. We do not believe that nearly enough has been done to bring proceedings against the Natwest 3. Writing in the Financial Times on 10 July 2006 Baroness Scotland said 'It is for the prosecuting authorities to consider whether a case should be heard in the UK.' Liberty would argue that when a failure to do so will result in a person instead facing trial on the other side of the world, the state should do more than 'consider' but take positive steps to see if prosecution is possible. Liberty would also remind Parliamentarians that when considering criminal charges, the UK prosecuting authorities need to consider not only the evidence, but also the public interest. There appears to be no public interest test in relation to extradition.

Unfortunately the case is not proceeding to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which means that there will not be an opportunity to put forward these arguments.

Parliament urgently needs to review the grounds for permitting extradition and the protections against unfair extradition. In particular there is a need to address

The lack of evidence needed to permit extradition
The lack of an obligation in domestic law requiring a case to be heard in the UK if possible.

 

   
 
 

The US has been using the UK 2003 extradition act to extradite people who have broken no UK laws knowing that they need no evidence of any kind. They also know that once you arrive in the US that even if you have done nothing Illegal that the threat of life behind bars and being remanded in custody for a long period of time while waiting trial is enough to get the extradited person to take a plea. In order to be extradited you must have committed a crime in the UK which has the corresponding crime in the US. In our case we have no criminal records and have been cleared of all wrong doing by the English and Scottish police.

We have spent 214 days on remand away from our four young girls and only a thirty day hunger strike managed to get us bail. Imagine yourself and your partner without notice put in prison without charge without questioning for 7 months not even given the same rights as a common criminal. If there is anybody from the media out there that would like to expand on this horrific story please contact me through this email address: brian@howes.uk.net and I will respond.