Democracy and Participation - Rights in context Flashcards
(12 cards)
Terrorism Act 2000
extended the limit to 7 days detention without charge for terrorist
suspects. It also allows terrorist organisations to be banned. Sixty groups have to date
been outlawed. The Act also introduced a broad definition of “terrorism” under s.1.
The stop and search powers in the Act were used to search protesters at an arms trade
fair in Canary Wharf, including a Ph.D. student and a journalist who took legal action
as a result. The police action was held to be lawful in R (Gillan) v Commissioner for
the Metropolitan Police [2006] UKHL 12.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
allows the government full surveillance
powers of all kinds of communication. The current rate is 30 warrants being issued a week. In the 15 months from July 2005 to October 2006, 2407 warrants were issued.
Civil Contingencies Act 2004
allows the government, for an “emergency”, to deploy
armed forces anywhere in the country during peace time (cf. Bill of Rights 1689). It
also allows property to be sequestrated, for an “emergency” with or without
compensation anywhere (cf. Prot. 1, Art.1 ECHR).
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
created an offence of inciting religious hatred, an advanced notification scheme for protests up to 1 kilometre from
Parliament. cf Blum v Director for Public Prosecutions.
Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
in response to the destruction of the
NYC World Trade Center on 9/11, the government passed legislation allowing
indefinite detention without trial for non-British nationals suspected of committing
terrorist offences, but without enough evidence for an actual trial (cf. Magna Carta,
Habeas Corpus Act 1679). When passing Acts of Parliament, under the HRA 1998 the
Minister has to make a “statement of compatibility” with the Convention. What they
did was to send notice of derogation from the right to a fair trial, Art.6 ECHR. Art.15
ECHR is the derogation provision, which says “In time of war or other public
emergency threatening the life of the nation” a member can derogate “to the extent
strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. The minister then declared when
passing the 2001 Act that it was (with the derogation sent) compatible with the HRA
1998.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
abrogated double jeopardy in cases with “new and
compelling evidence”.
A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 17
the majority of the House of Lords decided that the detention without trial under the ATCSA 2001 was discriminatory to non-British nationals, and therefore incompatible under Art.14 ECHR. A declaration of incompatibility was issued under s.4 HRA 1998. Lord Hoffmann was the only dissenting judge to hold that the whole detention without trial idea was incompatible with the right to a trial under Art.6, and that the derogation was unacceptable, because there was no “threat to the life of the nation”.
He argued strongly that it would be wrong to suggest, with the majority’s view that discrimination was the problem, that the government should be allowed to lock up all Britons alike.
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
the government in response to A’s case passed this
allows the Home Secretary to impose control orders on any British citizen. Anybody
suspected of terrorist related activities by the Home Secretary, but without any kind of
trial, can be electronically tagged, monitored, be restricted from making phone calls,
using the internet, be banned from certain kinds of work, can be restricted from going
certain places, have one’s passport revoked and be under a duty to report to the police.
The control order system was held disproportionate in Secretary of State for the Home
Department v JJ [2007] UKHL 45. The system was declared incompatible, because
there was no derogation. However, Lord Brown stated that if a suspect was left with
eight hours’ liberty a day, then it would have been acceptable.
Terrorism Act 2006
following the bombings in London on the 7th of July, this
legislation allows for people suspected of terrorist offences to be detained without charge for up to 28 days. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 had extended the time to 14 days. The government had initially proposed a limit of 90 days, saying this was on the recommendation of the police, and citing support from opinion polls.
Opposition among MPs saw the first defeat for the Blair government; the Conservative amendment of 28 days detention without charge being accepted. The act also created a new offence of “glorifying terrorism”.
Austin v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2007] EWCA Civ 989
Court of Appeal
rejects a charge of false imprisonment and an Art.5 ECHR claim for police holding
May Day protestors in Oxford Circus in 2001.
Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008
sought to extend the number of days detention without
charge to 42 days and to allow the Home Secretary to require an inquest to be
established without a jury in secret if they deems it to be in the public interest, the
interest of an overseas treaty partner or in the interest of national security. David
Davis MP, a Conservative politician and Shadow Home Secretary at the time,
resigned his parliamentary seat in June 2008 in protest over the proposed extension to
detention with charge. His resignation forced a by-election, which he contested and
won on a civil liberties platform. Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats stood a
candidate.
R v AB and CD (2014)
was the first British trial to be held entirely in secret although
some of the restrictions were loosened somewhat by the court of appeal after a legal
challenge by The Guardian.
