Terror law an affront to justice - judge
In a move certain to embarrass the government, a high court judge has branded the government's control orders against terrorists, "an affront to justice" and said that they breached suspects human rights.
The judgement cuts to the heart of the arguments surrounding the governments new legislation that allows it to restrict the movement of certain people, it suspects of links to terrorism, without bringing them to trial.
The government are certain to appeal against the ruling, although Lord Carlisle conceded that if the appeal was not successful, the government would have to consider amending the law.The ruling by Mr Justice Sullivan came after a challenge to the first control order issued against a British Muslim man, alleged by the security services and the home secretary to have been planning to travel to Iraq to fight UK and US forces.
At least 11 control orders have been issued, allowing the government to restrict the liberty and movement of people it claims endanger public safety because of their involvement in terrorism but who can not be tried in the courts.
The judge said the anti-terrorism measures were "conspicuously unfair" and dismissed supposed safeguards of suspects' rights as a "thin veneer of legality". He had to say "loud and clear" that the laws were unfair otherwise "the court would be failing in its duty."
Muddassar Arani, solicitor for the Briton, who is of Arab heritage, said: "This was the first British Muslim subject to a control order and he's being treated as a second-class citizen.
"It is clear the home secretary is acting as the judge, jury and prosecutor."
I think this is why most liberally minded people find these laws questionable. I've never really understood why these people can't be tried in court if they really are such a threat to the public.
Click on title to read full story.
Related Articles:
Anti-terror laws in turmoil after judge lambasts house arrest
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment