On 'secret evidence' and internment

Wednesday, 29 April 2009 03:17

Paul Donovan (pictured) in the Independent writes on the release of the 12 mainly Pakistani men falsely accused of an ‘Easter bomb plot’, and the use of secret evidence to detain individuals without charge or trial.

In contrast to the view of Alasdair Palmer in the Daily Telegraph, who argues in favour of intercept evidence, Donovan writes:

‘The news that 11 of the 12 men arrested on suspicion of terrorism are to be deported on grounds of national security has inevitably given – and is probably intended to give – the impression in the public mind that there can be no smoke without fire.'

‘Similar smearing tactics were deployed following many of the miscarriage of justice cases of the 1980s and 90s, when there would be whispers from "unnamed sources" as to those convicted getting off on technicalities. This tactic of guilt without substantiation has taken on a dangerous new lease of life over recent years as the authorities have resorted to the use of secret evidence to hold individuals for years in detention without ever knowing of what they are accused.

‘There is a growing campaign to reverse the growth in the use of secret evidence. This has seen the Labour MP Diane Abbott put down an early day motion noting "that secret evidence is evidence held by the Home Office against an individual that neither the individual, nor their legal representation may see"; that "in recent cases secret evidence has been used to detain individuals in prison for up to three years without charge or trial" and that "the use of secret evidence by the state against individuals runs entirely contrary to habeas corpus".

‘It is high time that habeas corpus was restored to the UK. All that [the prisoners] and the other foreign nationals facing uncertain futures seek is that they be brought before a court in order that they can answer any charges brought against them. Is this too much to ask?’

Dianne Abbott’s Early Day Motion on banning the use of secret evidence can be read, along with signatories, here. Also copied below:

‘That this House believes the use of secret evidence in UK courts is fundamentally wrong; notes that secret evidence is evidence held by the Home Office against an individual that neither the individual, nor their legal representation, may see; further notes that in recent cases secret evidence has been used to detain individuals in prison for up to three years without charge or trial; further notes that these individuals may also be put under a control order or severe bail conditions, greatly limiting their movements and ability to lead a healthy life; further believes that the use of secret evidence by the state against individuals runs entirely contrary to Habeas Corpus; recognises the European Court of Human Rights' ruling that detaining individuals on the basis of secret evidence is unlawful because detainees had not been able to effectively challenge the allegations against them; and calls on the Government to begin an immediate independent review into the use of evidence that is not ever heard by the defendant or their lawyer but which is used to justify indefinite detention, severe bail conditions or control orders.'

Comments

Add New