Abu Rideh has was under controls until he felt he had no choice but to be deported to Algeria to allow his wife and children to have a normal life here in the UK without him
The control orders powers created under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 are due for renewal. SACC opposed the legislation when it was forced onto the statute books in March 2005 after an epic parliamentary struggle. These extaordinary powers were supposed to be temporary. MPs should resist pressure to rubber stamp them for another year: For more information visit - http://tinyurl.com/2ev8xh (Terror Bill passed, 11 March 2005)
Amnesty International Media Briefing Ahead Of UK Parliamentary Debate On Renewal Of The 'Control Order Regime'
This media briefing outlines Amnesty International's key concerns with the Control Order regime under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA), ahead of Thursday's annual parliamentary motion concerning the renewal of this legislation.
Amnesty International is urging MPs not to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Amnesty believes that if there is evidence that someone has committed a crime, they should be charged with a recognisably criminal offence and given a fair trial before an independent and impartial court, with full access to all the evidence against them.
Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said: 'Control Orders provide little more than an illusion of justice. In effect they allow the government to punish people indefinitely on the basis of secret intelligence. 'Of course the government must protect the public from terrorist attacks. But its response to this threat has been to strip people of their most basic rights.
'The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is an affront to human rights and the rule of law and should be repealed. 'If there is evidence that someone has committed a crime, they should be charged with a criminal offence and given a fair trial.' The PTA grants the executive unprecedentedly sweeping powers to subject people to Control Orders. In turn, these impose unacceptable restrictions on fundamental freedoms guaranteed under domestic and international human rights law in the UK (including the rights to freedom of assembly, association, movement, and expression; the right to a fair trial and the right to liberty).
The PTA gives the executive the power to subject UK and foreign nationals to control orders for an indefinite period of time, effectively imposing on them a punishment of a criminal nature without charge or trial, on the basis of secret intelligence that is never disclosed to them. The UK courts have ruled on several occasions that Control Orders constitute an unlawful deprivation of liberty (1). Through an as-yet-unused power, derogating Control Orders may be imposed under the PTA, allowing for house arrest, still without charge or trial. According to international and domestic law, 'house arrest' without charge or trial is no different from institutional deprivation of liberty.
Notes
In August 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Home Secretary's appeal against a High Court ruling that had quashed control orders that the Secretary of State had made against six foreign nationals. On that occasion, the Court of Appeal confirmed that cumulatively the obligations imposed on the men amounted to deprivation of liberty. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the High Court that the Home Secretary had made the orders unlawfully because only the courts, not the Home State, have power to make such orders. In the same vein, on 16 February 2007, the High Court quashed the control order imposed by the Home Secretary on another man because cumulatively the obligations imposed on him by the control order amounted to a deprivation of liberty
Source: SACC
Amnesty International Media Briefing Ahead Of UK Parliamentary Debate On Renewal Of The 'Control Order Regime'
This media briefing outlines Amnesty International's key concerns with the Control Order regime under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA), ahead of Thursday's annual parliamentary motion concerning the renewal of this legislation.
Amnesty International is urging MPs not to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Amnesty believes that if there is evidence that someone has committed a crime, they should be charged with a recognisably criminal offence and given a fair trial before an independent and impartial court, with full access to all the evidence against them.
Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said: 'Control Orders provide little more than an illusion of justice. In effect they allow the government to punish people indefinitely on the basis of secret intelligence. 'Of course the government must protect the public from terrorist attacks. But its response to this threat has been to strip people of their most basic rights.
'The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is an affront to human rights and the rule of law and should be repealed. 'If there is evidence that someone has committed a crime, they should be charged with a criminal offence and given a fair trial.' The PTA grants the executive unprecedentedly sweeping powers to subject people to Control Orders. In turn, these impose unacceptable restrictions on fundamental freedoms guaranteed under domestic and international human rights law in the UK (including the rights to freedom of assembly, association, movement, and expression; the right to a fair trial and the right to liberty).
The PTA gives the executive the power to subject UK and foreign nationals to control orders for an indefinite period of time, effectively imposing on them a punishment of a criminal nature without charge or trial, on the basis of secret intelligence that is never disclosed to them. The UK courts have ruled on several occasions that Control Orders constitute an unlawful deprivation of liberty (1). Through an as-yet-unused power, derogating Control Orders may be imposed under the PTA, allowing for house arrest, still without charge or trial. According to international and domestic law, 'house arrest' without charge or trial is no different from institutional deprivation of liberty.
Notes
In August 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Home Secretary's appeal against a High Court ruling that had quashed control orders that the Secretary of State had made against six foreign nationals. On that occasion, the Court of Appeal confirmed that cumulatively the obligations imposed on the men amounted to deprivation of liberty. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the High Court that the Home Secretary had made the orders unlawfully because only the courts, not the Home State, have power to make such orders. In the same vein, on 16 February 2007, the High Court quashed the control order imposed by the Home Secretary on another man because cumulatively the obligations imposed on him by the control order amounted to a deprivation of liberty
Source: SACC
0 comments:
Post a Comment