Justice, an independent legal human rights organisation based in London, Engand and founded in 1957 produced this report on the use of secret evidence in the UK's judicial system. The report details the following concerns:
• It is a basic principle of a fair hearing that a person must know the evidence against him.
• This core principle of British justice has been undermined as the use of secret evidence in UK courts has grown dramatically in the past 10 years.
• Secret evidence can now be used in a wide range of cases including deportations hearings, control orders proceedings, parole board cases, asset-freezing applications, pre-charge detention hearings in terrorism cases, employment tribunals and even planning tribunals.
• Defendants in some criminal cases are now being convicted on the basis of evidence that has never been made public. Criminal courts have issued judgments with redactions to conceal some of the evidence relied upon. Evidence from anonymous witnesses has also been used in hundreds of criminal trials and is widespread in ASBO hearings.
• Since they were first introduced in 1997, almost 100 special advocates – lawyers prohibited from communicating with those they represent – have been appointed. Indeed, the government itself does not know how many special advocates have been appointed.
• This report calls for an end to the use of secret evidence. Secret evidence is unreliable, unfair, undemocratic, unnecessary and damaging to both national security and the integrity of Britain’s courts.
• In its place, this report sets out a series of recommendations that include the strengthening current disclosure procedures by the creation of public interest advocates to replace special advocates in PII claims; increasing the transparency of existing court procedures; and ending reliance on ‘reasonable suspicion’ in such proceedings as deportation and control orders.
For further information contact the report's author Eric Metcalfe, Director of Human Rights Policy, emetcalfe AT justice.org.uk
by Afua Hirsch
Source: The Guardian UK
URL: [link]
Date: June 10, 2009
A judgment condemning the use of special advocates in imposing control orders is another blow to an unfair system
Welcome to a new phase in the battle over counter-terrorism laws between parliament and the courts. Today's unanimous condemnation of the use of special advocates in imposing control orders by the House of Lords came as quite a surprise – overturning previous decisions upholding the system by the high court and the court of appeal.
There have been judicial blows to this system in the past; including a House of Lords decision in October 2007 which ruled that the special advocate system did not provide sufficient safeguards. But the law lords disagreed wildly on the extent to which the "controlee", as those under control orders are known, should be provided with the case against him, and left the overall system of control orders in place.
But today's judgment is a more fundamental blow. The House of Lords – in a powerful panel of nine judges – has decided that the system of secret advocates violates the right to a fair trial unless the controlee has access to at least the irreducible minimum of the case against them.
The current system of secret advocates has not allowed this.
by Brent Mickum
Source: The Guardian UK
URL: [link]
Date: March 30, 2009
The Bush administration's false claim that my client was a top al-Qaida official has led to his imprisonment and torture
This article was submitted to the CIA prior to publication. Passages redacted by the CIA are marked [...].
Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, more commonly known as Abu Zubaydah, is my client. After being extensively tortured by the CIA and imprisoned in various black sites around the world, Zayn may finally be approaching his day in court. I and my co-counsel welcome that day. But what if we are successful and establish that Zayn is not an enemy combatant? Would any country agree to take our client? The Bush administration's misrepresentations about Zayn make that virtually impossible unless I am allowed to tell his side of the story. This article is the first step in that reclamation process.
For many years, Abu Zubaydah's name has been synonymous with the war on terror because of repeated false statements made by the Bush administration, the majority of which were known to be false when uttered. On 17 April 2002, [...] President Bush publicly announced that Zayn had been captured: "We recently apprehended one of al-Qaida's top leaders, a man named Abu Zubaydah. He was spending a lot of time as one of the top operating officials of al-Qaida, plotting and planning murder."
Zayn's capture and imprisonment were touted as a great achievement in the fight against terrorism and al-Qaida. There was just one minor problem: the man described by President Bush and others within his administration as a "top operative", the "number three person" in al-Qaida, and al-Qaida's "chief of operations" was never even a member of al-Qaida, much less an individual who was among its "inner circle". The Bush administration had made another mistake.
These facts really are no longer contested: Zayn was not, and never had been, a member of either the Taliban or al-Qaida. The CIA determined this after torturing him extensively and [...]. Zayn was never a member or a supporter of any armed forces that were allied against the United States. He had no weapon when he was taken into illegal custody. He never took up arms against the United States nor against its coalition allies. He was not picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan at the time of his detention, but was taken into custody in Pakistan, where he was wrongfully attacked, shot, and nearly killed. So serious were his wounds that a surgeon from John Hopkins University was flown to Pakistan to perform emergency surgery to save the life of a man the Bush administration believed to be the number three man in al Qaeda.
by News Release
Source: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
URL: [link]
Date: November 18, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 18, 2008
Controversial “Diplomatic Assurances” Revealed For The First Time In Records Obtained By ACLU And Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Clinic
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and Columbia Law School's Human Rights Clinic released documents today revealing for the first time details of the U.S. government’s process for transferring individuals to countries where they face a significant risk of being tortured. The documents, which were uncovered as the result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the two organizations, shed new light on the fundamentally flawed practice of “diplomatic assurances” or secret promises obtained from foreign governments that they will not torture the returned individuals.
“The United States' practice of relying on deeply flawed diplomatic assurances makes a mockery of our obligations under the Convention Against Torture,” said Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. “Now that President-elect Obama has pledged to end torture, it is a perfect time to put a stop to policies that permit the transfer of individuals facing torture in foreign countries. Our government should stop trusting such inherently unreliable assurances and immediately disclose all remaining records relating to this practice.”
The documents released today include copies of actual diplomatic assurances – the first ever to be made public. The U.S. government has repeatedly insisted that the assurances must remain secret.
By Mike Head Source: The World Socialist Website URL: [link] Date: September 27, 2008
Australia’s largest and most protracted terrorist trial ended with distinctly mixed results last week in Melbourne. After a Victorian Supreme Court trial that ran for 115 days, the nine women and three men on the jury took nearly four weeks to reach their verdicts. While they found seven of the twelve defendants guilty of terrorist-related offences, they acquitted four others of all charges and were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on another, who now faces a lengthy re-trial.
Those acquitted walked free after nearly three years in maximum security prison cells; the lawyers for those convicted have indicated that they will almost certainly appeal. No sentencing has yet occurred, but if the convictions were upheld, they could be jailed for between 10 and 50 years.
The trial became a major test case for the so-called “war on terror” and the draconian anti-terrorist legislation introduced by the former Howard government from 2002, with the Labor Party’s support. Most of the 12 Muslim men on trial were arrested in highly-publicised police raids in November 2005, just days after then prime minister John Howard declared there was an imminent terrorist threat and recalled the Senate for an emergency session to push through far-reaching amendments to the anti-terrorism laws.
by Press Release
Source: Amnesty International
URL: [link]
Date: June 27, 2008
Amnesty International welcomes the decision by the Slovak Constitutional Court on 26 June 2008 in the case of Mustapha Labsi, which reaffirms the absolute duty on the authorities not to send any person to any place where they face a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment, and underscores the obligation of Slovakia not to rely on diplomatic assurances.
More details here.
by Helen Kinsella Source: The Globe and Mail URL: N/A Date: June 12, 2008
LONDON -- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown escaped defeat by a hair's breadth in a packed House of Commons yesterday over controversial plans to allow police to detain suspected terrorists for as long as 42 days without charge.
Backing for the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which the government had said was necessary to deal with the increasing complexity and ruthlessness of terrorist plots, will come as some measure of relief to the embattled leader, who has suffered a series of blows in recent months.
Mr. Brown's authority, however, remains in question after he was forced to go into persuasion overdrive and ultimately rely on the support of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party to ensure victory, with the final count at 315 to 306.
With several Labour backbenchers threatening to defy the government over what they saw as an infringement of civil liberties, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had announced a number of amendments in the lead-up to the vote. They included the requirement for an "exceptional and grave" terrorist threat, and parliamentary authorization within seven days of an application.
by Nigel Morris Source: The Independent (UK) URL: N/A Date: April 10, 2008
The Government's anti-terror strategy suffered a blow yesterday when Abu Qatada, a preacher described as "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe", won a court battle to stay in Britain.
The Home Office was also forced to abandon plans to deport 12 Libyans suspected of terrorism after the Court of Appeal gave a damning verdict on promises they would not be tortured in their home country.
Tony Blair laid plans to expel terror suspects after the July 7 London bombings by negotiating "memorandums of understanding" (MoUs) with Middle Eastern and north African countries that they would not be harmed. But the policy is in ruins after the court blocked deportation of Abu Qatada to Jordan and of two Libyans.
Britain signed MoUs with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon in 2005, but has struggled to reach agreement with Algeria, the home country for several terror suspects.
Abu Qatada has been convicted of terrorism in his absence in Jordan. He has been in jail in Britain since 2001 as the UK seeks to deport him. But the court registered fears yesterday that evidence that might he used against him in Jordan would be obtained by torture. It also backed the appeals of two Libyans – AS and DD – on the basis that the Government failed to give enough weight to the risk of torture.
Abu Qatada remains in custody as the Home Office contemplates a new appeal against the court decision.
The pressure group Human Rights Watch said: "These cases show the Government should stop trying to deport people to countries whose justice systems are deeply tainted by torture and other abuses."
Original author: Andy Worthington
Source: Counterpunch.org
URL: [link]
Date: November 2, 2007
Britain's Law Lords Capitulate on Control Orders
Guantánamo as House Arrest
Imagine being picked up by the police, taken to a maximum security prison, and held for years -- indefinitely, for all you know -- without being told what it is that you're supposed to have done. Sounds familiar? If you substitute "soldiers" for "the police," it sounds like Guantánamo, or Bagram, or Abu Ghraib. But it's not. It's Belmarsh prison, in south east London.
Three years ago, in December 2004, after 17 men, captured and held as described above, had already been imprisoned in Belmarsh for at least three years without charge and without the prospect of a trial, Britain's law lords ruled that this kind of detention was in breach of human rights law. In response, the government introduced a new form of detention without charge or trial. Under the control orders introduced in spring 2005, the eleven Belmarsh prisoners who were still in detention were allowed to return home, but were subjected to a range of measures which severely restricted their liberty.
Original author: Peter Griffiths Source: Reuters via Yahoo News URL: [link] Date: July 30, 2007
LONDON (Reuters) - Terrorism suspects held under virtual house arrest in Britain suffer "Kafkaesque" treatment in special courts that review secret evidence against them, a committee of legislators said on Monday. (Advertisement)
The committee's report said "no right-minded person" would think the suspects had a fair hearing when they often had no idea of the case against them.
It likened the system to the Star Chamber, a secretive and oppressive English court abolished in 1641.
"This is a process that is offensive both to the basic principles of natural justice as we know it and to British ideas of fair play," said Andrew Dinsmore, chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The law allows suspects who cannot be prosecuted in the courts to be held under a loose form of house arrest known as a "control order". These are scrutinised in special tribunals.
Click on the photo of Mohamed to see all items related to him. JUNE 2017: Mohamed Harkat once again faces deportation to his native Algeria after the Supreme Court of Canada declared the federal government’s security certificate regime constitutional.
This fight is not over. The Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee will re-double its efforts to see that justice is done for Mohamed Harkat and that the odious security certificate system of injustice is abolished once and for all.
