-Caveat Lector-
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:33:22 -0600 (CST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Media briefing -- Terrorism Act 2000 -
Organization: ?
Article: 115413
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
:
:
* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International *
20 February 2001
EUR 45/007/2001
31/01
Yesterday (19 February) the United Kingdom government brought
into force the Terrorism Act 2000. Amnesty International
considers that this legislation contains provisions which either
directly contravene international human rights treaties to which
UK is a party, or may result in violations of the rights not to
be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, to fair trial and to
freedom of expression and association. Some of these provisions
were drawn from previous emergency or temporary legislation,
which in the past facilitated serious abuse of human rights, as
extensively documented by the organization throughout the years.
As a result, Amnesty International has grave concerns about this
Act and will monitor its implementation.
The creation of a permanent distinct system of arrest,
detention and prosecution relating to "terrorist offences" may
violate the internationally recognized right of all people to be
equal before the courts. This different treatment is not based
on the seriousness of the criminal act itself but rather on the
motivation behind the act, defined in the Act as "political,
religious or ideological". Some of the provisions that Amnesty
International is concerned about in particular are the following:
$ the wide definition of "terrorism" includes not only
the use but also the threat of action involving serious violence
against a person or serious damage to property or designed to
seriously interfere or disrupt an electronic system. The purpose
qualifying such an action or threat as terrorist, i.e. advancing
a "political, religious or ideological cause", is also very wide
and open to subjective interpretation. The definition is vaguely
worded and could be extended to include supporters of, for
example, animal liberation or anti-nuclear campaigns and others.
The lack of a clear definition gives cause for concern because
the decision to bring a prosecution for such offences could be
seen to be political;
$ wide-ranging powers of arrest without warrant;
$ denial of a detainee's access to a lawyer upon arrest:
the right to legal assistance can be delayed, up to 48 hours, if
the police believe the granting of this right may impede the
investigation;
$ the Act allows for a consultation between lawyer and
detainee to be held "in the sight and hearing" of a police
officer, if a senior police officer has reasonable grounds to
believe that such consultation would lead to interference with
the investigation. Separate provisions, in relation to Scotland,
similarly allow for an officer "to be present during a
consultation". These powers breach international standards;
$ the maximum period of detention without charge is seven
days, with an extension of up to five days being granted by a
judicial authority after the initial 48 hours.The provisions
regarding judicial supervision of detention are still
significantly weaker than under ordinary legislation. Under
ordinary legislation, the maximum period of detention without
charge is four days, with further 36-hour and 24-hour extensions
being granted by a judicial authority after the initial 36 hours;
$ provisions giving the Secretary of State the power to
direct "the place where a person is to be detained" are of
concern if people arrested under this legislation could be
detained at special interrogation centres, as opposed to
designated police stations;
$ the shifting of the burden of proof from the prosecution
to the accused who must prove their innocence in various
provisions of the Act; such provisions undermine the fundamental
right to a presumption of innocence. For example, it is a
criminal offence to collect or make a record of or possess
information likely to be useful to a person committing or
preparing an act of terrorism, including a photographic or
electronic record; it is a defence for the accused to prove that
he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession;
$ possible infringement of the right to freedom of
expression and of association in some provisions of the Act, e.g.
in the new offence of "inciting terrorism overseas" which could
be committed by words alone. There is a danger that prosecuting
such "inciters" may be prompted by overseas repressive
governments targeting opponents based in this country. Thus these
provisions may infringe the rights to freedom of expression and
of association. Furthermore, there is concern that the right to
fair trial may be infringed if people are charged on the basis of
intelligence information provided by other governments or on the
word of informants, if this information is then kept secret from
the defendant through the use of public interest immunity
certificates;
$ Part VII of the Act, which provides for additional
emergency powers applicable only in Northern Ireland, undermines
the spirit of human rights protection in the Multi-Party
Agreement of April 1998, in which the government committed itself
"to make progress towards the objective of as early a return as
possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland,
consistent with the level of threat". These provisions, which
have resulted in unfair trials and other human rights violations,
include the non-jury, single-judge trials; a lower standard of
admissibility for confessions as a basis for prosecution and
conviction than in ordinary courts; and general police and armed
forces powers of arrest, entry, search and seizures without a
warrant. The "juryless" system, combined with the lower standard
for the admission of evidence allowed under emergency
legislation, is incompatible with the right to a fair trial.
Amnesty International has documented, since the early 1980s,
concerns about unfair procedures in the single-judge, juryless
"Diplock Courts" and has, more recently, called for them to be
abolished. The organization believes that the continuing
existence of a special court is normalising what is intended
under national law to be an exceptional and temporary measure and
is contrary to the spirit of international law;
$ provisions allowing police officers to obtain court
orders to force journalists to hand over to the police
information in their possession which the police claim may be
useful to their investigation. Amnesty International has been
concerned in the past that the police have used similar emergency
powers in order to intimidate journalists from pursuing certain
lines of inquiry which may be embarrassing for the authorities;
these cases have mainly involved investigative journalists who
have refused to hand over information which was obtained in
confidence from their sources or who have refused to reveal the
name of their source. These journalists were exposing possible
human rights violations by agents of the state and the attempts
by the authorities to force journalists to reveal their sources
or confidential information could have a chilling effect on
freedom of expression.
Amnesty International is concerned that provisions in the
Terrorism Act contravene UK obligations under international human
rights law. Furthermore, many provisions are open to abuse by law
enforcement officials, and the Act fails to provide adequate
safeguards against such abuse.
****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main
text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting
Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the
list subscription message may be removed.
****************************************************************
To subscribe to amnesty-L, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
with "subscribe amnesty-L" in the message body. To unsubscribe,
send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with "unsubscribe amnesty-L"
in the message body. If you have problem signing off, contact
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> handles
only messages concerning list administration. Past and current Amnesty
news services can be found at <http://www.amnesty.org/news/>.
Visit <http://www.amnesty.org> for information about Amnesty International
and for other AI publications. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you
need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
