|
APL terms control order regime unfit for purpose
APL (Association of Pakistani Lawyers) a team of Pakistani origin lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers, and Judges in UK issued a statement and termed control order regime unfit for purpose ahead of publication of the report following a review of security laws by Lord Macdonald and, and upon perusal of media reports that the current regime of control orders will remain in place until the end of 2011.
APL welcomed Lord Macdonald’s remarks that some laws and powers ‘did go too far,” and it expected that now that the time is not the same and we have experience in hand so proper review may enable the coalition Govt with a better replacement addressing the concerns of all stake holders.
APL welcomed the announcement of Home Secretary with caution that the control order regime will be scrapped by the end of the year replacing with T-Pims (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures) as most of the restrictions will remain with a new title however APL welcomed that the age of detention without charge to go to 14 days and the proposed tightening of ‘stop and search’ measures only in a narrow and specific events such as London Olympic games 2012 which will alleviate the concerns of human rights and religious minorities, as Muslims were prime victims of such heavy handedness. There is no study of what possible outcome was achieved as a result of detaining those foreigners without a charge and what could have been improved to make this exercise more fruitful.
APL termed control orders a temporary measure and its benefits are a ‘temporary relief’ to check the activities of a potential suspect, but at the greater cost of sacrificing civil liberties and all the principles on which our morality and judicial system stands for that any one arrested is ‘innocent’ until proven ‘guilty’ beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law. Without this presumption, the minority communities will never be able to get out of the dock especially after the incidents of 9/11 and 7/7 tragic terrorist attacks.
APL Chair Amjad Malik said that more emphasis should be on curtailing civil liberties with a purpose of reformation, rehabilitation and de-radicalisation, unless supported with that kind of objective, curtailment of any movement of any subject cannot be justified on any premises when criminal justice system has a variety of available options to arrest, charge, try and sentence accused with suspicions in order to address public safety and national integrity.
Amjad Malik said that I think control order is a parking system here and sometimes abroad of potential suspects who cannot be tried due to evidential problems or risk of losing intelligence but cannot be allowed to roam around free due to a fear of offending. It could have worked if it is coupled with de-radicalisation project whereby a positive outcome is envisaged of restricting somebody’s movement infringing someone’s basic human rights. Assessment of risk coupled with mental evaluation of reoffending and aiding by a religious scholar to antidote the radical trance and or temporary mesmerism under which a suspect or a victim may have been using fully our mental health legislation and other provisions. If a positive outcome is expected then society , faith groups whether Muslim and Christian and human right activists may see a logic to filtering, refining and de-radicalising the potential suspects who are assessed to pose a threat to public good. At this moment none is expected, and system is faulty and it is not fit for purpose.
APL referred that classic case is of ‘Omair Arshed’ that despite service of a control order in January 2007. The very next day he could easily purchase a ticket, board a plane, do stopovers and land Pakistan without any one taking an administrative step to stop his movement as required by law.
APL chair said that on 16 January 2007 Tony McNulty speaking in the Parliament confirmed that ‘there are eighteen control orders in force’ and since its introduction in 2005, the figure is touching to around 45 people who have been subject to the orders - including eight currently waiting to be removed or extradited.
APL is of the view that , “the Control orders are designed for suspects who cannot be deported or for whom evidence is too sensitive and their access to the internet and phone conversations can be monitored under the orders, which also involve curfews, tagging, residence requirement and strict surveillance at the property and suspect’s movement. It is the job of the Home Secretary to reach a balance between public safety and individual’s liberties and both are honours positions and both must be respected in equal terms. Unless, we have more trials, sharing intelligence, and international MOU’s to ensure torture free removal of foreign nationals to their countries, this issue will remain debateable for coming years as it invokes the inherent argument of executive superiority, and judicial scrutiny in matters which involves basic human rights of an individual and society on the whole. National security is a wider umbrella and in this day and age it is difficult to hide behind this screen for a longer period as we witnesses in the ‘operation pathway’ case and or many higher court rulings in terrorism trials hence promoting tolerance and legalised regime is the way forward to remain compliant with our obligations to ECHR and meeting the demand of rules of natural justice, fairness, and equality in any civil society”.
Signed By Chair & Secretary
Barrister Amjad Malik
Chair Association of Pakistani Lawyers (UK)
Of Association of Pakistani Lawyers (UK)
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
LINKS:
Lord Macdonald Report of 26 jan 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12287074?print=true
News night 23 nov 2010
|