Web of secrets still clouds control orders | Saleyha Ahsan
Changes to control orders will not help those currently living under house arrest and awaiting deportation
Control orders, in their revised form, still deny the right of an accused individual to have a fair trial, to hear the evidence against them in an open court and to be punished appropriately for any crime they have committed. For those labelled as threats to national security based on secret evidence, the limbo continues. This is particularly so for foreign nationals.
The announcements about loosening control order restrictions will not extend to the 12 individuals living under a form of house arrest as they are bailed and face deportation to Algeria, Jordan, Somalia and Ethiopia. The government has secured agreements either through memorandums of understanding or verbal diplomatic assurances that the individuals in question will not be harmed on their return. Within the ongoing negotiations are the issues of monitoring returnees and their treatment at the hands of respective authorities. If Algeria verbally promises not to torture, but refuses to sign a piece of paper to testify to that effect, is that viable? Hardly.
And even written promises are not a safeguard. Detainee Y is an Algerian national who left his home country following the civil war of the 1990s. He was accused of being a key figure in the anti-government movement. What he did or did not do in Algeria has mainly emerged from accusations made in signed confessions by other detainees in interrogation centres in Algeria. After surviving torture he escaped to Europe, finally arriving in the UK in 2000, where he was granted asylum. He has a death sentence in absentia. It is clear the Algerian authorities want him back. But does this make him a terrorist in this country? Or is he instead! a dissi dent who fled seeking refuge? As the situation stands, it is impossible to clarify this because of the continuing web of secrets clouding the legal picture.
In 2003, Y was implicated in the ricin plot. Mohammed Meguerba, who had previously lived in the UK, was detained and interrogated in Algeria. He identified Y along with a number of other Algerians living in the UK. In 2005, Y's case was heard in open court and he was acquitted. The "plot" was eventually found to be down to Meguerba and the conspiracy was shattered.
Six months later, Y was detained again and this time served with a deportation order and his refugee status revoked. The original, supposedly confidential, asylum documents of Y and other Algerians facing deportation were sent back to Algeria. He spent two years in HMP Long Lartin, without any charge or trial, until he won bail. He now lives under extremely restrictive conditions, tagged and isolated. His case has been heard through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), in which a Home Office-vetted judge presides. It allows the use of secret evidence presented in closed sessions. SIAC is the only court in the UK to allow this practice.
In 2009 the European court of human rights and the House of Lords ruled that an individual must be given the gist of the information used against them, thus allowing an appropriate defence. But this does still not apply to foreign nationals, and SIAC continues to use secret evidence.
Both Lord Macdonald's report and the government's review on counter-terrorism and security powers tackle the "deportation of foreign nationals engaged in terrorism". None of these individuals has had the opportunity to defend themselves appropriately against such accusations. In all cases, the security services have presented secret evidence. The use of special advocates, who are not permitted to speak to the appellant or their legal team after the closed material's presentation, is not a fair system under any circumstances.
In Y's case, a jury had already heard evidence against him in open court during the ricin trial. Six months later he was labelled a threat to national security. What was the new evidence? Where did it come from? Could it be the same evidence, presented again a practice not legally permitted? Does it stem from intelligence gained from torture? Or does it have its roots in a dialogue between the UK and Algerian governments? The current system in place was constructed in haste to fit a political agenda. We cannot know the answer to any of these questions until it is reformed.
Comments