The decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ( SIAC ) is a
devastating blow to the credibility of the UK Government and in particular the
reputation of the Home Secretary, David Blunkett.
Nine terrorist suspects, arrested and held without the right of trial,
following the introduction of anti-terrorist legislation in the UK, won their
appeals against detention.
To the delight of Human Rights campaigners, SIAC ruled that the detentions were
illegal, but those held are unlikely to be immediately freed, as the Home Office
has already indicated that it will take the ruling to the Court of Appeal.
SIAC Committee Chairman, Mr Justice Collins, said the Government's
Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, was, "Not only discriminatory and so
unlawful", but also, "disproportionate".
Confirming the inherently racist nature of the Act, the Committee said the
law was unfair because it allowed the detention of foreign nationals only,
while British citizens, who may have been equally involved with terrorist
organisations, could not be so detained.
SIAC said therefore, that the Act breached the European Convention on Human
Rights ( ECHR ).
The Government thought it had avoided this problem by creating a derogation
under ECHR legislation by claiming there was, "A public emergency
affecting the life of the whole nation". SIAC obviously disagree, and do not
believe such a claim of derogation is valid or applicable.
A specially appointed SIAC panel spent three days hearing the case in public
before continuing in private, beyond public scrutiny. A 'Special Advocate' was
appointed by the Attorney General, after vetting by the MI5 and MI6 security
services, to examine evidence which was considered far too secret and sensitive
for the suspects or their legal representatives to see.
It was secrecy such as this which, not only made the detentions so
offensive in the first place, but led many to believe that SIAC would
be nothing more than a puppet in the Government's hands.
The resulting wholesale condemnation of the detentions has therefore surprised
many, and is a devastating blow to the Government's stance on the issue. If
those believed to be it's lackeys can't help it out; just who can ?
Given that SIAC had access to the secret intelligence information
upon which the detentions were ordered, and arrived at the conclusion that
the detentions were, "Disproportionate", it is hard to see how the Government
can defend the process which other lawyers have called, "Bizarre, irrational
and extraordinary".
Obviously they can't, but that won't stop them doing so.
The Home Office said it was was disappointed with the finding that the
anti-terror laws discriminated against foreign nationals, but argued that
UK legislation had always distinguished between UK citizens and foreign
nationals.
It rejected the claim that the detentions were, "Disproportionate", saying
that, "The Home Secretary has used his powers to detain these individuals on
the basis of detailed and compelling evidence". What MI5 and the Home
Secretary consider, "Compelling", is what SIAC appears to have considered to be
almost irrelevant.
The Home Office even went as far as claiming that the SIAC hearing had probably
delayed individual appeals against detentions. Obviously, taking their cases to
SIAC was not really in the detainees best interests.
Although the detainees are free to leave the country at any time they wish,
their next step towards being allowed to have a free life in the UK is to take
their cases to the Court of Appeal in October, 2002.
There are those who still say that their freedom should not be granted, and that
they are a danger to the UK. If that is so, then perhaps they could find some
credible evidence which supports that view. The detainees can then be put on
trial and the claims can be tested in a legal court.
That is all these people are asking for - properly conducted procedures of
judicial decision.
At least the Special Immigration Appeals Commission agrees, and must be
congratulated for not bowing to Government pressure and its imposition of
illegal detention on those who have never been found guilty of any offence,
or even tried for any offence.
