Counter-terrorism policy and human rights (sixteenth Report) : Annual renewal of control orders legislation 2010, ninth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written Evidence

The Joint Committee on Human Rights calls for a fundamental, independent review of the necessity for and proportionality of all counter-terrorism measures adopted since September 11 2001. It questions the way that the policy imperatives of national security and public safety have been used to justify squeezing out human rights considerations. Since September 11 2001, the Government has continuously claimed that there is a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation". The Committee questions whether the country has really been in this state for over eight years. A permanent state of emergency skews public debate about the justification for rights-limiting counter-terrorism measures. It is unacceptable that the Director General of the Security Service refuses to appear before it to give public evidence - despite giving public lectures and media interviews. The Committee finds the Government's narrow definition of complicity in torture significant and worrying and calls for an urgent independent inquiry into the allegations of complicity in torture. The Government should drop the draft bill still being held in reserve to allow pre-charge detention to be extended to 42 days. And more work should be done on measures - such as bail and the use of intercept evidence - that could reduce the use of pre-charge detention. The Intelligence and Security Committee should become a proper Parliamentary committee with an independent secretariat and legal advice and appointing an independent reviewer of counter-terror legislation who reports directly to Parliament not the Government.

Examines the Counter-Terrorism Bill before its second reading in the House of Commons. This title concentrates on five significant human rights issues needing thorough parliamentary scrutiny: pre-charge detention; post-charge questioning; control orders and special advocates; the threshold test for charging; and the admissibility of intercept.

Although there has been a lot written about how counter-terrorism laws impact on human rights and civil liberties, most of this work has focussed on the most obvious or egregious kinds of human rights abrogation, such as extended detention, torture, and extraordinary rendition. Far less has been written about the complex ways in which Western governments have placed new and far-reaching limitations on freedom of speech in this context since 9/11. This book compares three liberal democracies - the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, in particular showing the commonalities and similarities in what has occurred in each country, and the changes in the appropriate parameters of freedom of speech in the counter-terrorism context since 9/11, achieved both in policy change and the justification for that change. In all three countries much speech has been criminalized in ways that were considered anachronistic, or inappropriate, in comparable policy areas prior to 9/11. This is particularly interesting because other works have suggested that the United States' unique protection of freedom of speech in the First Amendment has prevented speech being limited in that country in ways that have been pursued in others. This book shows that this kind of argument misses the detail of the policy change that has occurred, and privileges a textual reading over a more comprehensive policy-based understanding of the changes that have occurred. The author argues that we are now living a new-normal for freedom of speech, within which restrictions on speech that once would have been considered aberrant, overreaching, and impermissible are now considered ordinary, necessary, and justified as long as they occur in the counter-terrorism context. This change is persistent, and it has far reaching implications for the future of this foundational freedom.

On 30th January 2008 the Home Secretary laid before both Houses of Parliament a draft Order to renew the control order legislation, the third annual extension of the control order regime. The Government takes the view that no amendments to the legal framework are necessary. The Committee disagrees and considers it imperative for the Government to amend counter-terrorism laws where experience has shown them to lead to breaches of human rights. Amongst their recommendations are: ensurance of timely availability of Lord Carlile's annual report on the control orders; the need to strengthen the intrusive powers contained in the control orders; modification of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to impose a maximum daily limit 12 hours on the curfew which can be imposed; review of the fairness of the special advocate procedure and a need to take into account the Committee's own earlier recommendations concerning this; maintaining the preferred policy of priority of prosecution; and greater transparency of decisions that prosecution is not possible.

Presents a report on aspects of the Government's counter-terrorism strategy since the 2005 election. This book draws attention to criticisms of the UK's counter-terrorism law and policy in various reports by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the UN Human Rights Committee. HC 1077.

This report examines the Government's intention, as part of its counter-terrorism measures, to increase the pre-charge detention limit from 28 to 42 days. The Committee believes that there is a clear national consensus that the case for further change has not been made by the Government. In the Committee's view a truly consensual approach should lead the Government to accept that it has failed to build the necessary national consensus for this very significant interference with the right to liberty and withdraw the proposal; to proceed with it as detailed by the Home Office calls into question the Government's commitment to a consensual approach and raises questions of compatibility with human rights. The Committee does not accept that the Government has made the case for extending pre-charge detention beyond the current limit of 28 days, for the following reasons: i) it can find no clear evidence of likely need in the near future; ii) alternatives to extension do enough, in combination, to protect the public and are much more proportionate; iii) the proposed parliamentary mechanism would create a serious risk of prejudice to the fair trial of suspects; iv) the existing judicial safeguards for extensions even up to 28 days are inadequate.

Work of the Committee in 2007 and the state of human rights in the UK : Sixth report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal Minutes

This report presents the Government's response to the Committee's 29th report (HL 165-I/HC 150-I, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780104013472). The Committee welcomes various aspects of the Government response but also has some substantive comments. It also notes that publication of the Government's Green Paper has been repeatedly delayed and recommends that it be published as soon as possible. The Government's reiteration of its commitment not to detract or resile from the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and its acknowledgement that there would be scope for including in a new constitutional document a range of rights and responsibilities which go beyond those in the ECHR, are welcomed. The Committee is concerned to detect some equivocation in the Government's view about the Human Rights Act, particularly following the interview given by the Secretary of State for Justice in the Daily Mail on 10 December 2008. It also remains unclear about the relationship between rights and responsibilities envisaged by the Government in a Bill of Rights. Finally, the Committee recommends that the Government should follow Australia's example and appoint an independent committee to conduct a national consultation on the whole range of options for a Bill of Rights for the UK, ahead of parliamentary consideration of the bill itself.

A report that provides an overview of the Committee's work during the 2008-09 parliamentary session and draws attention to improvements to the human rights landscape in the UK which it has commended in reports during the year. It also mentions a number of continuing areas for concern.