| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Terror suspects put on control orders 'should be prosecuted' |
| 2007-02-20 |
| More terror suspects should be prosecuted rather than left in legal limbo under virtual house arrest, John Reid has been warned. Lord Carlile of Berriew urged the Home Secretary to devise an alternative to control orders, under which terror suspects face restrictions on their activities. Critics have condemned the orders for imposing a near-imprisonment on people without the allegations against them being examined in court. Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, made clear that he believed more prosecutions should be mounted against terror suspects on orders. He said information used against terror suspects on control orders, such as financial support for Iraqi insurgents or apparent references to planned atrocities, might be "progressed to evidence of significant terrorism crime". He said police, prosecutors and security services should examine whether suspects on a control order could be prosecuted under normal criminal law. Lord Carlile said: "It is a given that it would be far better for prosecutions to occur, of course provided they pass the usual threshold standards." He also repeated his call for a change in the law to allow intercept evidence, such as telephone taps, to be made admissible evidence in some prosecutions. Although he described the control order system as a "justifiable and proportional safety valve", Lord Carlile said the Government needed to think ahead to what might replace it. Nineteen terror suspects have been placed on control orders since the beginning of last year. Three have absconded since the summer and are still on the run. Lord Carlile said their disappearance did not undermine the control order system, but underlined the need for "constant reconsideration of the surveillance and observation" of suspects. Lord Carlile's report on the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act follows a judgment last week at Manchester Crown Court in which a control order was quashed on the grounds that the defendant had been deprived of his liberty. Mr Reid said: "The Government is committed to having the strongest ... armoury to protect the public from terrorism. Control orders were never our preferred option but they remain an essential measure." David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, called for a review of all control order cases. "We have said from the beginning that it is better to lock up a terror suspect," he said. "This demonstrates ... that control orders are being used instead of prosecutions." Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "We feared control orders would be used to circumvent due process and avoid bringing people before the court. This report suggests those fears were well founded." Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: "Three control orders have resulted in escape and five have been quashed - these orders are clearly a sloppy substitute for criminal law." |
| Posted by:Fred |