|
|
Issue 265, Friday 27 May 2011 - 23 Jumad al-Akhar 1432 Innocent Muslims will continue to be arrested under draconian terror laws What ‘reasonable suspicion’ do police need to arrest terrorist suspects? The answer is apparently none or very little. According to the Government’s new reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, CO15 Counter- Terrorism Command used the powers of arrest, search and seizure under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA2000) “lawfully and appropriately” when detaining six Muslim street cleaners during the Pope’s visit to London last September. He gave the police a clean bill of health even though he admitted there was “no reason to believe, with the benefit of hindsight, that any of the arrested men was involved in a plot to kill the Pope or indeed that any such plot existed.” In his first report since replacing Lord Carlile, Anderson suggests that there could be more cases of wrongful arrests of innocent suspects, which will be equally acceptable, even though the only lawful basis for a Section 41 arrest is reasonable suspicion. “There will be future temptations to use the TA 2000 powers in relation to individuals as to whom the necessary reasonable suspicions do not exist, particularly in the context of international high-profile events such as the London Olympics,” he said. “Constant vigilance is required to ensure that the legal boundaries of those powers are respected, as they were in this case,” he added. Reports at the time were that the men, all from North Africa, had been simply overheard sharing a joke in a staff canteen. Anderson found that there were at least three reasons for SO15 Counter-Terrorism Command to react “sceptically.” The reported plot did “not conform” to any established pattern of intelligence; it was “barely credible that persons who were within a couple of days of executing an attack on the life of the Pope would have spoken openly of their intentions” and that the alleged conversation was at “a far more general level than might have been expected from persons whose plans for an attack were already well advanced.” The reviewer in compiling his report met two of the men, spoke with lawyers and questioned two CO15 detectives. He admitted that he was “in no doubt that to be subjected to an armed arrest at their place of work was a shocking and disorientating experience” for the suspects. “Whilst none of the men complained of any mistreatment during periods of detention, this too must have been a bewildering and unpleasant experience for them,” he also said. One criticism was that some of the arrested men were denied the right to inform a named person of their detention – a right which serves “to differentiate the practices of a civilised society from the unexplained ‘disappearances’ characteristic of a police state.” The review of the arrests was launched last November to examine whether the police used their powers correctly when they arrested the men and whether there was any other way they could have dealt with the suspected threat. The findings allowed Home Secretary, Theresa May, to say that she was “grateful” for the review. “I am also pleased that he finds that the police exercised the powers afforded them under the Terrorism Act 2000 lawfully and appropriately in seeking to prevent what they had reasonably suspected was a potential terrorist plot. I welcome both his finding and his recommendations and intend to publish the Government's full response shortly.” Anderson is reputedly an outstanding QC, arguing more than 30 cases before the European Court of Human Rights. But his first report does not give comfort to Muslims as Anderson says the police did nothing wrong as the arrest of the innocent Muslims was according to the law. If this was lawful, then what would be unlawful i.e. what would fall foul of his statement: “Constant vigilance is required to ensure that the legal boundaries of those powers are respected, as they were in this case.” Where is this boundary? Will terror suspects in future be allowed to inform their loved ones about their detention? This is outrageous. What is of concern is that no human rights group has even criticised Anderson’s implication that more innocent Muslims will be arrested in future. What kind of message are we sending to Muslims? That they are second class citizens and their basic civil rights are not protected? Muslim plot against Pope never existed, Govt’s terror laws watchdog rules |