Court rules terror suspects' detention unlawful

Staff and agencies July 30, 2002

The government's anti-terrorism legislation suffered a serious blow today as nine alleged international terrorists won an appeal against their imprisonment without trial.

The suspects, who were arrested under emergency powers introduced in the wake of September 11 by the home secretary, David Blunkett, persuaded the special immigration appeals commission that their detention was unlawful.

The committee chairman, Mr Justice Collins, said the government's Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which was rushed through in December, was "not only discriminatory and so unlawful...but also it is disproportionate".

The law was unfair because it allowed the detention of foreign nationals only, even though British citizens may have been equally involved with al-Qaida or other terrorist organisations, he said. It therefore breached the European convention on human rights, the commission said.

However, today's ruling was unlikely to lead to the immediate release of the nine, who have been held in southeast London's high security Belmarsh prison.

Mr Collins said the act was discriminatory because the government had not opted out of article 14 of the convention, but he noted that their ruling "may be of little if any assistance" to the nine men if parliament chose to pass legislation to deal with the discrimination.

The panel did, however, say that the government had been correct to state that there was a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation".

Lawyers for the nine argued earlier this month that the act created a series of "bizarre, irrational and extraordinary" situations in which detainees were deprived of their legal and human rights.

It was the first time that the specially-appointed panel had examined the legality of the act.

John Wadham, director of civil rights group Liberty, said: "This has always been a manifestly unjust and discriminatory power.

"The government knows it cannot intern British citizens but thinks it acceptable to intern foreign nationals. The human rights convention rightly ensures that this type of discrimination cannot be lawful.

He added: "We do not see such a state of imminent and extreme national emergency as to justify locking people up without charge or trial, not for anything they have done but for something someone thinks they might do.

"The Home Office says there is, but it refuses to tell either the people it is imprisoning or the general public why - that evidence was all confined to secret sessions. Our fight against these sweeping state powers will continue."

A statement from Home Office said: "We are pleased that the court accepts the government's judgment that in the light of September 11 there is a public emergency threatening the UK. "

Although Mr Collins crticised the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, the Home Office statement pointed out that "the court held that the powers of detention in the [act] are a proportionate and balanced response to that emergency.

"The court's finding does not make the detention unlawful, and the individuals will not be released as a result of this judgement. We are disappointed that the court has found that these powers discriminate against foreign nationals. Our law has always distinguished between UK citizens and foreign nationals.

"The 1971 Immigration Act, for example, allows the home secretary to detain an individual, prior to removal, on the grounds that their deportation is conducive to the public good."

"The [act] . . . responds to the public emergency that the court has accepted we face by providing for the extended detention of non-UK nationals whom we are currently unable to deport - for example, because they could face degrading treatment or death. Those detained are free to leave the UK voluntarily at any time."

The Home Office said it would be appealing to the court of appeal on the issue of discrimination. The statement added: "The home secretary has used his powers to detain these individuals on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence.

"This evidence will be considered by the court in the autumn, when the individual cases will be heard, as provided under the act. We believe that the individual appeals would have been heard sooner but for this challenge."