Detainees and control orders
News about detainees and control orders
CAMPACC in Association with Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Tuesday, 13 July, 7-9pmCommittee Room 4, House of Lords, Westminster, SW1
Hosted by Lord Rea. All welcome.
With speakers:
Imran Khan Solicitor, Imran Khan & Partners, Vice-President of Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Isabella Sankey Policy Director, Liberty
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Hicham Yezza, Writer and Activist, Editor of Ceasefire Magazine. Unjustly detained under terror laws for 6 days. He has recently won his case against the Home Office's attempts to deport him.
Anne Gray, Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)
Pre-charge detention refers to the period of time that an individual can be held and questioned by police before being charged with an offence.
In 2008 the Labour Government dropped its controversial plans to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days after Liberty’s award winning Charge or Release campaign.
The fight is not over - the UK already has the longest period of pre-charge detention in the western world. Read more
The House of Commons will debate whether the controversial control order system will be renewed on Monday 1st March 2010. There are serious concerns about the renewal of control orders from all sections of our civil society. CAMPACC organised an open letter to the Home Secretary from over 120 individuals drawn from a range of professions and organisations urging him to not to pursue their renewal.
Please write to your MP - see specimen letter
Sign up to Liberty's petition to end control orders. You can also email your MP through Liberty's website
Links and resources
Liberty's Charge or Release campaign
The Coalition against Secret Evidence (CASE) was set up in February 2009, CASE is made up of individuals and organisations working on the issue of the use of secret evidence in the UK courts.
Also see Resources: legislation
Other articles and reports
Britain's own Guantánamo
The injustices faced by those charged with control order breaches are indefensibly brutal.
Gareth Peirce, The Guardian, December 21, 2007
The reality of living under a control order
Statement made at the House of Lords meeting, 29 March 2006
Families speak out on control orders
A report of the meeting held in the House of Lords, 29 March 2006
The Forgotten Detainees under Control Orders
by Ann Alexamder, Scotland Against Criminalising Communities, April 2005
A stampede against justice
In a plea to parliamentarians, Gareth Peirce spells out the dangers of control orders
The Guardian, 8 March 2005
Control orders create a ‘domestic prison’ regime
"The real threat to the life of the nation… comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these... It calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has, until now, been very proud - freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention"
Lord Hoffman, December 2004
In March 2005, despite huge opposition from the public and the House of Lords, the Prevention of Terrorism Act became law. In the name of ‘anti-terror’ measures, the new ‘control orders’ treat people as guilty. They are branded forever as individuals ‘involved in terrorism-related activity’. These measures violate a fundamental principle: innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial. They punish individuals for what they might do, not what they have done. Already such orders have restricted association, telephones and internet use, while imposing electronic tagging. Later these powers may be extended to house arrest. Any breach of such conditions could lead to imprisonment. More people may have new orders imposed at any time.
CAMPACC's submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into Control Orders, February 2006. (pdf file)
On Friday 3rd December 2005 Lord Carlile published his report supporting the government’s use of ‘control orders’(under the PTA 2005), as measures supposedly necessary to protect us all from suicide bombings. Thus he justified punishment without trial, even without public evidence against those punished. The same day was the deadline for submissions to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) inquiry into control orders. CAMPACC’s submission attacked the ‘domestic prison’ regime which results from control orders and from bail conditions under the Immigration Act 1971. All these restrictions create a domestic prison for anyone who acts as a host, e.g. the person’s family, friend or volunteer. These measures violate basic human rights, yet the government acts as if no derogation from the ECHR is necessary.
Read the Joint Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into Control Orders Report, February 2006 (pdf files)
On 14th February 2006, the JCHR published its report, appending submissions from several opponents of control orders (CAMPACC, SACC, Liberty, Justice, etc.). The solicitors Tyndallwoods quote their client Mr X as follows: ‘I was in prison before on my own, but now my whole family is in prison.’ (p.92). In its main report, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2006, the JCHR regards control orders as so restrictive of liberty as to require a derogation from the ECHR. Moreover, argues the JCHR, control order proceedings amount to determination of a criminal charge and so warrant the full protections of a criminal trial. The Committee opposes the government’s plan to renew the control order powers without any derogation and without Parliamentary debate (before the powers lapsed on 11th March 2006). Read Scotland Against Criminalising Communities press release drawing out the main points of the report, 14 February 2006
No punishment without trial: repeal the political 'control orders'
CAMPACC's response to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the control orders, March 2005
The end of Internment?
CAMPACC statement in reponse to the Law Lords’ ruling on indefinite detention, 23 December 2004.