Comments on: Secret evidence in the case of the North West 10 “terror suspects” http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/08/05/secret-evidence-in-the-case-of-the-north-west-10-terror-suspects/ Author & journalist Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:21:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Calling Time On The Use Of Secret Evidence In The UK by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/08/05/secret-evidence-in-the-case-of-the-north-west-10-terror-suspects/comment-page-1/#comment-52552 Calling Time On The Use Of Secret Evidence In The UK by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:16:26 +0000 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?p=5161#comment-52552 [...] in the case of two “terror suspects.” One man, XC, is a 23-year old Pakistani student and one of the North West 10 (students rounded up in connection with a wildly hyped and seemingly unsubstantiated terror plot in [...] [...] in the case of two “terror suspects.” One man, XC, is a 23-year old Pakistani student and one of the North West 10 (students rounded up in connection with a wildly hyped and seemingly unsubstantiated terror plot in [...]

]]> By: Andy Worthington http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/08/05/secret-evidence-in-the-case-of-the-north-west-10-terror-suspects/comment-page-1/#comment-49290 Andy Worthington Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:22:53 +0000 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?p=5161#comment-49290 Thanks for getting in touch. I covered the Lords' ruling here: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/06/13/law-lords-condemn-uks-use-of-secret-evidence-and-control-orders/ However, I had not heard about the case of Harry Roberts until now. Thanks for sharing that. And as for the control orders, you're absolutely right to remark on how the "compelling" secret evidence has turned out to be rather less "compelling" when the government is required to really examine it. The next step is for the Lords' ruling to apply to those held on deportation bail -- and presumably government officials are already sitting around discussing levels of dangerousness, which rather undermines the whole system in the first place ... Thanks for getting in touch. I covered the Lords’ ruling here:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/06/13/law-lords-condemn-uks-use-of-secret-evidence-and-control-orders/
However, I had not heard about the case of Harry Roberts until now. Thanks for sharing that.
And as for the control orders, you’re absolutely right to remark on how the “compelling” secret evidence has turned out to be rather less “compelling” when the government is required to really examine it. The next step is for the Lords’ ruling to apply to those held on deportation bail — and presumably government officials are already sitting around discussing levels of dangerousness, which rather undermines the whole system in the first place …

]]> By: The Antagonist http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/08/05/secret-evidence-in-the-case-of-the-north-west-10-terror-suspects/comment-page-1/#comment-49288 The Antagonist Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:13:36 +0000 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?p=5161#comment-49288 Great article. In June of 2009 there was a "historic" and unanimous law lords ruling that stated it was "unlawful" to use "secret evidence". From the Guardian: Secret evidence on terror suspects ruled illegal • Judgment puts future of control orders in doubt • Law lords say regime breaches human rights http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/10/secret-evidence-legal-status .... The law lords said that unless a suspect was given "sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions to the special advocate" – the vetted lawyer supposed to represent their interests at closed hearings – their right to a fair trial under article six of the European convention on human rights would be breached. It is worth noting that the use of secret evidence does not just apply to 'terror' 'suspects' but is also being used against one Harry Roberts, a prisoner who served the 30 year tariff issued to him in 1966 yet still finds himself in prison some 13 years after his recommended 30 year tariff expired. Roberts has not been allowed to know what the charges against him are and finds himself in the the same Kafkaesque situation as many 'terror' 'suspects', endeavouring to defend himself against the unknown. It is interesting and telling that the government has set about revoking some of the heinous control orders it has has imposed, rather than reveal any of the 'compelling' secret evidence that it claims justifies otherwise baseless methods of repression and subjugation. Great article.

In June of 2009 there was a “historic” and unanimous law lords ruling that stated it was “unlawful” to use “secret evidence”. From the Guardian:

Secret evidence on terror suspects ruled illegal
• Judgment puts future of control orders in doubt
• Law lords say regime breaches human rights
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/10/secret-evidence-legal-status
….
The law lords said that unless a suspect was given “sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions to the special advocate” – the vetted lawyer supposed to represent their interests at closed hearings – their right to a fair trial under article six of the European convention on human rights would be breached.

It is worth noting that the use of secret evidence does not just apply to ‘terror’ ’suspects’ but is also being used against one Harry Roberts, a prisoner who served the 30 year tariff issued to him in 1966 yet still finds himself in prison some 13 years after his recommended 30 year tariff expired. Roberts has not been allowed to know what the charges against him are and finds himself in the the same Kafkaesque situation as many ‘terror’ ’suspects’, endeavouring to defend himself against the unknown.

It is interesting and telling that the government has set about revoking some of the heinous control orders it has has imposed, rather than reveal any of the ‘compelling’ secret evidence that it claims justifies otherwise baseless methods of repression and subjugation.

]]> By: Andy Worthington http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/08/05/secret-evidence-in-the-case-of-the-north-west-10-terror-suspects/comment-page-1/#comment-47785 Andy Worthington Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:38:43 +0000 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?p=5161#comment-47785 Thanks, David, for the concise appraisal of what's wrong, and for the links. Always good to hear from you. Thanks, David, for the concise appraisal of what’s wrong, and for the links. Always good to hear from you.

]]> By: David Mery http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/08/05/secret-evidence-in-the-case-of-the-north-west-10-terror-suspects/comment-page-1/#comment-47784 David Mery Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:22:00 +0000 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?p=5161#comment-47784 I attended SIAC, also for the first time, on the Monday afternoon - for one hour until the court adjourned in secret. It was fascinating and scary: the amount of legal guns (and cost) involved to argue about the possible coded meaning of eight email messages (open evidence) taken out of context, and realising the (controlled) freedom of a young student (XC) was fully hanging on this. The judge was clear that he was going to deny bail unless it could be proven that the Home Office assertion that the students are a security risk is wrong. Proving a negative, without access to (most of) the evidence, doesn't appear to be fair justice. Another relevant article is at http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/13+bail+pleas+of+7+students+rejected+in+britain-za-14 Also, there's more on secret evidence at http://coalitionagainstsecretevidence.com/ Practical tip: if you intend to attend a SIAC hearing, you can find out in which room it will sit by checking the 'hearing list' published in the latest news section on http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/ br -d I attended SIAC, also for the first time, on the Monday afternoon – for one hour until the court adjourned in secret. It was fascinating and scary: the amount of legal guns (and cost) involved to argue about the possible coded meaning of eight email messages (open evidence) taken out of context, and realising the (controlled) freedom of a young student (XC) was fully hanging on this.

The judge was clear that he was going to deny bail unless it could be proven that the Home Office assertion that the students are a security risk is wrong. Proving a negative, without access to (most of) the evidence, doesn’t appear to be fair justice.

Another relevant article is at http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/13+bail+pleas+of+7+students+rejected+in+britain-za-14

Also, there’s more on secret evidence at http://coalitionagainstsecretevidence.com/

Practical tip: if you intend to attend a SIAC hearing, you can find out in which room it will sit by checking the ‘hearing list’ published in the latest news section on http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/

br -d

]]>