Anti-terrorism powers for a rainy day

4 September 2011 by

Updated | Next week will mark the 10th anniversary of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Despite the intervening decade, the states threatened by terrorism are still puzzling out the right balance between the powers of security services and the rights of suspected terrorists to due process.

Although terrorism is now mercifully low on the public agenda, the effects of 9/11 are still being felt across the legal system. The United Kingdom is soon to open an independent inquiry into the improper treatment of detainees by security services following the terrorist attacks. As things stand, the UK’s major human rights groups are boycotting the inquiry for fear that the government will be able to suppress evidence.

The intelligence services have now tightened up their policy towards interviewing detainees overseas, but one policy which is still in flux is the control order regime, soon to be succeeded by Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs).

I have explained before why control orders have been so controversial – see Control orders: what are they and why do they matter?. In short, they are give the secretary of state the power to impose strict conditions on a terrorist suspect as long as there are “reasonable grounds” for suspecting they are or have been involved with terrorism-related activity. The orders are controversial because they allow the suspects to be effectively under house arrest without anywhere near the ordinary level of suspicion necessary to detain a person.

The TPIM bill drew back from some of the more stringent powers of control orders, most notably the power of the secretary of state to forcibly relocate a suspect to anywhere in the country. This was in line with the coalition government’s early promise to “restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power“.

Tomorrow the TPIM Bill is to receive its third reading in Parliament, and there has been some activity since I last posted on the bill. The government is now proposing a second bill to be scrutinised by Parliament; the “Enhanced” TPIM bill. If passed, this would allow more stringent powers, notably relocation to anywhere without consent , a total ban on communication devices and a ban on all communications without the secretary of state’s consent.

So does this mean we are going back to control orders? No. Well at least, not yet. January’s Review of Counter Terrorism Powers, the Secretary of State concluded that there may be exceptional circumstances where it could be necessary for the government to seek Parliamentary approval for additional restrictive measures (see page 43, para 27). This seems sensible; clearly the needs of the security services will be different should a “very serious terrorist risk” arise. Of course, that does raise the question of what constitutes “exceptional circumstances”.

It was not originally intended that the emergency powers be scrutinised by Parliament now, but during an oral evidence session with Baroness Neville Jones (see questions q51-56), the then Security Minister, the Joint Committee on Human Rights pressed for publication of a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. Again, this is sensible as it ensures that in an emergency the powers which would be passed would already have been scrutinised.

So, the enhanced bill has now been published, effectively to be kept in the locker in case of a rainy day. Not all is rosy, however. Amongst other things, the human rights campaign group Liberty have criticised a newly proposed clause in the main TPIM bill which will allow the Secretary of State to impose the measures if an emergency occurs during a Parliamentary recess.

This is similar to a Henry VIII clause, in that it allows the secretary of state to impose powers which have not been passed by Parliament, although they may previously have been scrutinised. This is a bit worrying, as it is within the Secretary of State’s discretion to decide when it is, in the language of the bill, “necessary to do so by reason of urgency“.

However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has been critical of the control order regime, said in June that if Parliament were in recess during an emergency, it would be impractical and potentially dangerous to wait for it to return or recall MPs in order to pass the emergency powers. So it may be right that the secretary of state should be able to act swiftly.

None of this is easy. As with President Obama’s early but as yet unfulfilled pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, the coalition government is finding it difficult to reduce the “too authoritarian” (the words used in the Coalition’s Programme for Government) powers imposed by the previous government. This near-impossible balancing exercise between security and liberty is the legacy of 9/11, and it will still be felt for years to come. Hopefully we can keep the rain off.

Update, 9 September 2011 – The amendments to the TPIMs Bill to allow the emergency recess powers were defeated on Monday 314 votes to 213.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

2 comments


  1. LG says:

    Sorry to be picky, but it is relevant that the link to the Joint Committee’s recommendations in July regarding emergency legislation and parliamentary recesses is actually to an ad hoc Joint Committee specifically established to scrutinise the draft emergency legislation on pre-charge detention. It was not the JCHR.

  2. Dominic Houghton says:

    “Exceptional circumstances”. One wonders if these will be the same exceptional circumstances as in which universities will be able to charge £9000 tuition, i.e. in the majority of cases.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: