Secret court proposals threaten habeas corpus safeguards

[breadandbutterfly]

Secret court proposals threaten habeas corpus safeguards, charity warns

Reprieve says anybody could be held without being told reason for arrest under plans included justice and security bill

www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/13/secret-court-habeas-corpus-reprieve

Chilling.

Chilling indeed. It's horrifying enough that courts where the accused can't see the evidence against them exist at all in a democracy, let alone that the government plans to extend their use.

How the hell is anyone supposed to defend themselves against evidence that they aren't told about? If MI5 says 'this person is dangerous, at 5pm they were in XXXX place talking to YYYY person' how can you deny it if you can't even be told that's the allegation?

I thought detention without charge came in with the Civil Contingencies Act in 2004... www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/24/somuchforhabeascorpus

Yes this is another very worrying development.

I'd like to see how they justify it - I want a govt minister to say 'We want this because we have decided that we are waging a war against terrorists and feel that we should be able to use any means in our power to protect our population.' Once they come out with their reasons, they can be debated. If, for example, they did say something like that, we would then be entitled to ask a lot more questions, eg who has decided this and what is the evidence for it. We would also be able to debate the best way forward.

For several years now our civil liberties have been eroded because someone somewhere thinks this is the only way to protect us, but don't we deserve some say in it? I hate being treated like a child and told these things are for our own good, or that if we are law-abiding citizens we have no need to worry. We should be very concerned about this, because the best political will in the world will not protect us from human error or malice, and there are so many ways in which a law like this could be misused or abused.

Chilling indeed, but I think IMcHunt :)
is correct in saying it came in with the Civil Contingencies Act.

Neither should we forget the European Arrest Warrant, whereby any British citizen can be spirited away on the whim of some foreign judge or magistrate to a country without Habeas Corpus.

Anyone who thought the Tories might start to dismantle the Labour's assault on our liberties and historical rights must be feeling thoroughly disillusioned.

Hardly news, the diplock court system is still used in the U.K(n.i) as is internment where someone can be put in prison without charge or legal representation based on association with a criminal or simply because the police suspect you might do something wrong in the future, a bit like minority report.

Conservatives are frequently blamed for not reversing Labour surveillance-measures; not their fault! Senior LDs, and the 2010 general election voters, UKIPpers splitting their vote to a smaller extent- Lib Dems would break the coalition if they did move hard on these issues. They had to make concessions...that's the nature of not getting a majority in HOC.

As Benjamin Franklin wisely said almost 250 years ago, "People willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both."

Habeas Corpus was part of English law for over 800 years but it has been undermined over the last ten years or so. I wish people would wake up to the dangers of a big government - it may appear perfectly reasonable to abandon an ancient principle in the face of Muslim extremism and under a generally benign government, but mechanisms are in place such that should we ever get a malicious government in control, many tools of repression are already on the statute books.

Proof of this lies in incidents such as this one. You will no doubt remember the case where an old chap, Walter Wolfgang, was arrested and held by the police for (anti-Iraq war) heckling at the Labour party conference. His heckle of 'nonsense' was enough for him to be detained under anti-terrorism legislation and nearly prosecuted under anti-stalking legislation. That Mr Wolfgang was expressing a commonly held view makes this incident all the more damning.

It must also been remembered that, at this time, the government of the day were pushing for 90 day detention without charge for terrorist offences. Had this law been enacted, Mr Wolfgang could well have found himself locked up without charge for 90 days - essentially for disagreeing with a government minister on the Iraq war policy. That is frightening.