RedAnarchist
2nd February 2004, 11:13
Blunkett plans secret terror trials
DAVID Blunkett, the Home Secretary, aims to bring in controversial new laws introducing pre-emptive trials for Britons suspected of international terrorism, it will be announced today.
The threat from suicide bombers was now so great that the burden of proof in British courts may have to be lowered in terrorism cases, so that extremists can be tried before they succeed in mounting an attack, Mr Blunkett argues.
Proposals allowing British terror suspects to be tried at least partly in secret by a security vetted judge will be put forward in a discussion paper soon. Mr Blunkett hopes to "address the issues before the general election".
The proposal would effectively create a hybrid between the existing trial system and emergency powers which have so far allowed internment of 16 foreign terror suspects on evidence which is tested in secret. Evidence in the new trials would even have to be kept secret from the defendants themselves to protect MI5, MI6 and GCHQ sources, he said.
The contentious move could allow prosecutors to take action against extremist figures where evidence was not strong enough to win a conviction under existing court rules. "I think we need to debate how we can amalgamate the Terrorism Act 2000 and the 2001 terrorism legislation and deal with these delicate issues of proportionality and human rights on the one hand and evidential base and the threshold of evidence on the other," said Mr Blunkett.
"That is the real challenge. I want to look at how the differential evidence base can be dealt with within our counter-terrorism legislation.
"That is quite a challenge, because we are having to say that the nature of what people obtain through the security and intelligence route is different to the evidence gained through the policing route."
Mr Blunkett’s proposal could see the level of proof required for convictions reduced from the normal criminal level of "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities".
Asked if British nationals suspected of terrorism should be imprisoned on this lower, civil burden of proof, he said: "Yes, I want that debate. It is about the threshold of evidence and the nature of those involved being accredited and trusted not to reveal the sources."
Mr Blunkett said terror suspects could be defended by government-appointed lawyers who had been security-cleared, because of the risk of lawyers passing sensitive material back to the defendant.
Part Four of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows foreigners who are suspected international terrorists to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial.
The act was criticised in December by a panel of senior parliamentarians, led by Lord Newton of Braintree, for failing to address the problem of British nationals with suspected terrorist links.
DAVID Blunkett, the Home Secretary, aims to bring in controversial new laws introducing pre-emptive trials for Britons suspected of international terrorism, it will be announced today.
The threat from suicide bombers was now so great that the burden of proof in British courts may have to be lowered in terrorism cases, so that extremists can be tried before they succeed in mounting an attack, Mr Blunkett argues.
Proposals allowing British terror suspects to be tried at least partly in secret by a security vetted judge will be put forward in a discussion paper soon. Mr Blunkett hopes to "address the issues before the general election".
The proposal would effectively create a hybrid between the existing trial system and emergency powers which have so far allowed internment of 16 foreign terror suspects on evidence which is tested in secret. Evidence in the new trials would even have to be kept secret from the defendants themselves to protect MI5, MI6 and GCHQ sources, he said.
The contentious move could allow prosecutors to take action against extremist figures where evidence was not strong enough to win a conviction under existing court rules. "I think we need to debate how we can amalgamate the Terrorism Act 2000 and the 2001 terrorism legislation and deal with these delicate issues of proportionality and human rights on the one hand and evidential base and the threshold of evidence on the other," said Mr Blunkett.
"That is the real challenge. I want to look at how the differential evidence base can be dealt with within our counter-terrorism legislation.
"That is quite a challenge, because we are having to say that the nature of what people obtain through the security and intelligence route is different to the evidence gained through the policing route."
Mr Blunkett’s proposal could see the level of proof required for convictions reduced from the normal criminal level of "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities".
Asked if British nationals suspected of terrorism should be imprisoned on this lower, civil burden of proof, he said: "Yes, I want that debate. It is about the threshold of evidence and the nature of those involved being accredited and trusted not to reveal the sources."
Mr Blunkett said terror suspects could be defended by government-appointed lawyers who had been security-cleared, because of the risk of lawyers passing sensitive material back to the defendant.
Part Four of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows foreigners who are suspected international terrorists to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial.
The act was criticised in December by a panel of senior parliamentarians, led by Lord Newton of Braintree, for failing to address the problem of British nationals with suspected terrorist links.