“We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness.

• We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.

• We will introduce a Freedom Bill.

• We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports.

• We will outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.

• We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

• We will adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.

• We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

• We will restore rights to non-violent protest. • We will review libel laws to protect freedom

of speech.

• We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

• We will further regulate CCTV. • We will end the storage of internet and email

records without good reason.

• We will introduce a new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

• We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.”

Further items of note within the document are:

Chapter 13 – Europe

“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.”

“We will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.”

Chapter 17 – Immigration

“We will introduce an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit.

We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

We will create a dedicated Border Police Force, as part of a refocused Serious Organised Crime Agency, to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. We will work with police forces to strengthen arrangements to deal with serious crime and other cross-boundary policing challenges, and extend collaboration between forces to deliver better value for money.

We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.

We will apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU Member States.

We will introduce new measures to minimise abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes, and will tackle human trafficking as a priority.

We will explore new ways to improve the current asylum system to speed up the processing of applications.”

Chapter 21 – National Security

“We will urgently review Control Orders, as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist legislation, measures and programmes. We will seek to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.”

“We believe that Britain should be able to deport foreign nationals who threaten our security to countries where there are verifiable guarantees that they will not be tortured. We will seek to extend these guarantees to more countries.”

The full document is available here.

“On 1 February 2010 the Home Secretary laid before both Houses the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2010. This provides for the continuation of the control order regime from 11 March 2010 until 10 March 2011. This is the fifth renewal order extending the life of the control order regime.

Parliament’s opportunities to thoroughly scrutinise these powers are limited. First, parliamentarians have not been supplied with all the information they need. We call on the Government to make public at least a summary of the responses of the consultees whose views are sought by the Secretary of State before the annual renewal order is laid. Secondly, the affirmative resolution procedure limits detailed scrutiny. We recommend that extraordinary counter-terrorism powers, such as control orders, should be made subject to a proper sunset clause, requiring them to be renewed by primary legislation. Thirdly, we are concerned about the Government’s post-legislative assessment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. We believe that it has mischaracterised the important judgments of MB and AF by suggesting that the House of Lords has “confirmed” that the control orders regime operates in a manner fully compliant with the ECHR. That is not a fair or accurate characterisation of the effect of the House of Lords judgments.

We have serious concerns about the control order system. Evidence shows the devastating impact of control orders on the subject of the orders, their families and their communities. In addition detailed information is now available about the cost of control orders which raises questions about whether the cost the system is out of all proportion to the supposed public benefit. We find it hard to believe that the annual cost of surveillance of the small number of individuals subject to control orders would exceed the amount currently being paid to lawyers in the ongoing litigation about control orders. Finally, we believe that because the Government has ignored our previous recommendations for reform, the system gives rise to unnecessary breaches of individuals’ rights to liberty and due process.

We have previously recommended that the gist of the allegations against a controlled person should be disclosed to that person. The Government resisted this. The decision in AF requires separate consideration be given in each case to whether a sufficient gist of the allegations and evidence has been given to the controlled person in the open part of the proceedings to enable them to give effective instructions to their special advocate. Although the Government had said that it would be reviewing the material in each control order in the light of AF, in practice the Secretary of State has taken a “minimalist” approach to the decision. We recommend a more thoroughgoing and proactive review of the material on which the Government relies to sustain existing control orders with a view to deciding in each case whether more disclosure is required.

We have previously heard evidence from the special advocates about the limitations on their ability to perform their function of providing controlees with the “substantial measure of procedural justice” required by Article 6 ECHR. Notwithstanding the rule change which permits special advocates to adduce evidence, it remains the case that they continue to have no access in practice to evidence or expertise which would enable them to challenge the expert assessments of the Security Services. This gives rise to a serious inequality of arms. In addition there is a significant problem of late disclosure of closed

Counter Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Sixteenth Report): Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2010 4

material by the Secretary of State to the special advocates. This leaves the special advocates with insufficient time to scrutinise the closed material and to challenge the Government’s reasons for the material being closed. This creates the risk of serious miscarriages of justice.

In previous reports we have drawn attention to the unfairness caused by the rule prohibiting communication between special advocates and the controlled person or his representative following receipt of the closed material. We believe that so long as the rules remain unchanged, the inability of special advocates to take instructions on the closed case seriously limits the extent to which they are able to represent the interests of the controlled person. We conclude that the special advocate system has not proved capable of ensuring the substantial measure of procedural justice required. In short, it cannot be operated fairly without fundamental reforms which the Government has so far resisted.

Our conclusion is that the current control order regime is no longer sustainable. A heavy onus rests on the Government to explain to Parliament why alternatives, such as intensive surveillance of the very small number of suspects currently subject to a control order, and more vigorous pursuit of the possibility of prosecution, are not now to be preferred.”

The full report can be viewed here.

The secretary of state’s apology and admission that he had breached the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.5(4) by having failed promptly to secure a review of a prisoner’s release, was a sufficient remedy to the prisoner where the breach had not extended the period he would have to spend in custody, and had not caused him to suffer the sort of frustration or anxiety that might otherwise merit an award of damages under art.5(5). The court also ruled that “compensation” under art.5(5) was not limited to money and that courts should have regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 s.8 when considering the appropriateness of remedies in this context.

Full report can be found here

The court accepted that there is a presumption of liberty at common law in Scotland. It was therefore for the Secretary of State to justify continuing detention. The Court further held that under the principles set out in R v Governor of Durham Prison ex p Hardial Singh 1984 1 WLR 704 there is no single period which when reached, automatically leads to the conclusion that the period of detention has become unreasonable, each case must be considered on its own merits. Legaility of detention does not hang on compliance with policy and the Detention Centre Rules, thus formal non-compliance does not matter where the merits show that the period of detention is reasonable. In considering the merits the Court held that the petitioner’s self-induced detention through his non co-operation and inconsistent attitude are weighty considerations, as are the lack of ties between the petitioner and the UK, that he had exhausted all his statutory rights of appeal. Also considered was the factual history of his entry to the UK and criminal conduct whilst in the UK and the implication from that of a significant risk of absconding and re-offending. It therefore appeared reasonable to the Court to continue the Petitioner’s detention while these risks still obtain and while it still appears to be the case that co-operation on his part will lead to his speedy deportation.

The full report can be found here.