logo
   Web Issue 3149 May 16 2008   
spacer
Brown moves to calm fears over threat to civil liberties
MICHAEL SETTLE, Chief UK Political CorrespondentJune 04 2007

Gordon Brown last night sought to calm fears over threats to traditional civil liberties which were raised after he signalled a fresh counter-terrorism crackdown to combat "a new security problem" facing Britain.

Speaking at Labour hustings in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the Chancellor, who takes over as Prime Minister on June 27, reassured his party's grassroots that he would introduce safeguards to protect civil liberties as he flagged up his intention to revive measures which would allow the police to hold suspects for more than 28 days without charge and be able to question a detainee after he or she had been charged.

He is also planning to introduce new laws making terrorism an aggravating factor in sentencing in a similar way to existing laws on racially aggravated crime.

The proposals - some of which are due to be outlined by Home Secretary John Reid this week - sparked concern among civil liberty campaigners and MPs, who warned that extending pre-charge detention to 90 days would amount to internment.

In response, the in-coming PM sought to reassure them by proposing a requirement for a weekly judicial review of a detained suspect and establishing cross-party talks on the possible use of phone-tap evidence in court.

In Glasgow over the weekend, Mr Brown sought to put the terrorist threat into context by saying that al Qaeda "probably" had as many as 60 offshoots around the world, using increasingly sophisticated means.

Yesterday, he declared how he was ready to be "tough in the security measures that are necessary to prevent terrorist incidents in this country," noting: "We will have to consider further legislation to do so. That is where the public will need to recognise that we have a new security problem."

‘The public will need to recognise that we have a new security problem’

However, he said he would make sure that "at no point will our British traditions of supporting and defending civil liberties be put at risk".

He added: "There has got to be independent judicial oversight. There has got to be parliamentary accountability. We should give the police the power to question people so we can both prevent incidents and get to the bottom of some of these very strange dealings."

Previous plans to extend pre-charge questioning to 90 days were scuppered by a Labour back-bench rebellion in 2005 when Tony Blair suffered his first Commons defeat as PM.

Yesterday, senior Labour MPs, including deputy leadership candidate Harriet Harman, suggested Mr Brown would need to present compelling evidence that the current 28-day limit was putting the public at danger before he could convince them to allow the measure through this time.

"If the government is going to bring forward and propose the powers that we say the police need, then we have to produce the evidence of why the current law is inadequate and we have to show the safeguards that will be there for civil liberties. That is the way to achieve consensus," argued Ms Harman.

Fellow deputy leadership contender Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland and Wales Secretary, agreed tougher powers were needed but also made clear there had to be a "careful balance between individual liberty and security".

David Davis for the Conservatives noted how Mr Brown had publicised his plans just days before Mr Reid's statement to MPs.

"It does not augur well for cross-party attempts to build a consensus for the new counter-terrorism measures, which the whole country needs to get behind," insisted the Shadow Home Secretary.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, noted how there was not much fresh thinking in Mr Brown's plans but accepted that he at least appeared to be "a little more concerned about parliamentary accountability than his predecessor".

He added: "It now remains to be seen whether this is just a procedural fig-leaf for more authoritarian measures or part of a genuine shift in guaranteeing and not undermining fundamental civil liberties."

Liberty, the civil rights group, said it supported the use of phone-tap evidence and post-charge questioning as alternatives to extending detention before charge but not in addition to it.

Shami Chakrabarti, its director, said Mr Brown was making "a grave mistake" in proposing to extend questioning without charge beyond 28 days, which, she pointed out, was the longest such period in the free world. "If you go beyond 28 days, it is internment," she added.

Meantime, Elish Angiolini, Scotland's Lord Advocate, said the changes being suggested for anti-terror laws would be applied in Scotland but she made clear she hoped to ensure they would be compliant with Scots law.

She also noted that any proposed new law would have to be compliant with human rights legislation, pointing out Scottish courts placed a deadline on the time it took for a case to come to court while they required a higher standard of corroborated evidence in criminal cases.


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.



Posted by: Hebb, Scotia on 1:36am Mon 4 Jun 07
Westminster deprives us of more and more of our precious freedoms because those terrorists just hate our freedoms.

I suppose it makes sense if you're bonkers.

Those Union dividends just keep coming. Next up: ID cards!
Posted by: Jim, Helensburgh on 6:33am Mon 4 Jun 07
A very emotive subject but are more extreme laws really necessary?

Here in Scotland,at least, there are people who are charged with a crime and can be remanded in custody for up to a year before their case comes to trial.

Are these people more dangerous than terrorists?

If you arrest someone because you have evidence of a terrorist crime then charge them with it and remand them in custody. Then you build the case with the evidence you have found.

You either have evidence or you don't and you certainly don't need new laws to detain people until you find evidence.
Posted by: Bill, England on 8:38am Mon 4 Jun 07
Jim wrote:
A very emotive subject but are more extreme laws really necessary?

Here in Scotland,at least, there are people who are charged with a crime and can be remanded in custody for up to a year before their case comes to trial.

Are these people more dangerous than terrorists?

If you arrest someone because you have evidence of a terrorist crime then charge them with it and remand them in custody. Then you build the case with the evidence you have found.

You either have evidence or you don't and you certainly don't need new laws to detain people until you find evidence.
Don't you have habeas corpus in Scottish Law?
Posted by: Bill, England on 8:41am Mon 4 Jun 07
Jim wrote:
A very emotive subject but are more extreme laws really necessary?

Here in Scotland,at least, there are people who are charged with a crime and can be remanded in custody for up to a year before their case comes to trial.

Are these people more dangerous than terrorists?

If you arrest someone because you have evidence of a terrorist crime then charge them with it and remand them in custody. Then you build the case with the evidence you have found.

You either have evidence or you don\'t and you certainly don\'t need new laws to detain people until you find evidence.
Don't you have habeas corpus in Scottish Law?
Posted by: mike, Partick on 8:54am Mon 4 Jun 07
Bill - I'm not sure of your point - my understanding is that in Scotland the "110 day rule" kicks in for people remanded in custody and awaiting trial, which means that in effect they can't be held for more than 110 days in cutosdy once committedt to trial before the trial begins. In England there is no such rule and it is not uncommon to find people remanded in excess of a year.
Posted by: Mac, Dundee on 9:13am Mon 4 Jun 07
Gordon Brown always takes with one hand with the promise to give with the other. The man is not to be trusted.
Posted by: teamdroid on 12:20pm Mon 4 Jun 07
How can you protect civil liberties by removing them?

Whenever you read about new anti-terrorism laws, try substituting "innocent bystander" for "terrorist suspect" in any description of new laws. Because any law changes affects them equally. See how far you get before you consider them outrageous.
Posted by: jim, Helensburgh on 6:19pm Mon 4 Jun 07
What I was trying to say is that there are existing laws, at least in Scotland. The police here refused to impliment some new laws brought in in recent years - saying they had enough law to deal with most situations.
How many people have been held under terrorist laws that were simply released due to lack of evidence.
Again, if you have evidence charge someone. Don't 'intern' them in the hope of finding evidence.
Posted by: James Tolan, Irvine , North Ayrshire on 7:54pm Mon 4 Jun 07
It would seem that the UK anti terrorist laws are now completely
racist . Mark Thatcher an admitted white terrorist ; No action taken against him when he returned from his African exploits.
Boris Berezovsky a white Russian terrorist who was to be extradited to Russia but saved by 'some politician from No 10'. Warned by Jack
Straw about his conduct. But nothing happened.
The Libyan in Greenock Prison was fitted up by UK and US for the
Lockerbie Pan Am mid air explosion. The Scottish Legal persons
involved are still trying to find a way out of that muddle.
Some of the Nu Labour Politicians in power now, were vociferous
in there opposition of the Tory Rulers. Maggie Thatcher was blasted
for her backing of the American leaders. The UK Labs and Torys are
now one Party in ideolegy. Lets just call them the LabaTory Party.
Jim Irvine , North Ayrshire
Add your comment
Please note: to publish your comment you must be registered on this site. If you are already registered, please enter your details below.
Email:
Password:
spacer
 IN YOUR AREA
 
Herald Appointments - Every Friday
Travel Shop
Airport Parking
Travel Insurance
Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved   
Sitemap :: Circulation :: Syndication :: Advertising :: About Us :: Terms of Use