Background Briefing

Executive Summary and Recommendations

Beginning on July 8, the House of Lords will debate new counterterrorism legislation—the day after the United Kingdom commemorates the third anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in the nation’s history.

On July 7, 2005, three bombs exploded virtually simultaneously on three London underground trains, while a fourth bomb exploded on a London bus an hour later. Fifty-six people, including the four bombers, were killed, while over 700 were injured. Human Rights Watch shares in the commemoration of those who lost their lives and expresses our solidarity with those who continue to struggle with the legacy of the attacks.

The British government has an obligation to protect everyone living in the UK from terrorist violence. But counterterrorism measures that violate international human rights and undermine fundamental values are wrong in principle and counterproductive in practice. Simply put, they will not make Britain safer.

This briefing paper analyzes those measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 Human Rights Watch believes are incompatible with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law. The bill is the sixth major piece of counterterrorism legislation since 2000.

Much of the debate around the bill has focused legitimately on the government’s renewed effort to extend pre-charge detention beyond the already excessive 28-day period. Human Rights Watch is convinced that UK law in this respect already violates the right to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further extension would be unnecessary, disproportionate and counterproductive.

However, it is also important to recognize that the bill contains other provisions that raise serious human rights concerns. The idea of broadening of police powers to question terrorism suspects after they have been charged with a crime was initially proposed by parliamentary committees and others as an alternative (rather than a complement) to extended pre-charge detention. But the measure in the bill lacks adequate safeguards against violations of the right to silence and against oppressive questioning, undermining the right to a fair trial.

The bill creates problematic notification requirements for those convicted of a terrorism or terrorism-related offence. Anyone sentenced to five years or more for a terrorism offense or a terrorism-related offense would be subject to these notification requirements for the rest of their lives. Any breach would be punishable by up to five years in prison. The requirements could be imposed on persons convicted outside the UK, without any regard to whether the conviction was the result of a fair trial according to international standards.

The bill adopted by the House of Commons also gives the Home Secretary (Interior Minister) the power to declare an inquest closed to the public and appoint a special security-cleared coroner to investigate in cases of death by the use of force. This procedure is unlikely to be compatible with the UK’s obligation under international human rights law to ensure independent and impartial investigations into wrongful deaths.

Human Rights Watch’s analysis of the bill is grounded in the belief that upholding human rights in the fight against terrorism is a principled imperative. Conversely, counterterrorism measures that violate human rights undermine a government’s moral legitimacy and damage its ability to win the battle for “hearts and minds” that Prime Minister Gordon Brown has acknowledged to be central to long-term success in countering terrorism.

We urge the House of Lords to:

  • Strike clauses 22 through 33 providing for a reserve power to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days;
  • Until section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2006 is repealed, improve safeguards for current 28-day pre-charge detention, including:
    • Broadening the judicial scrutiny to require any judge authorizing extensions to detention to be satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to believe the detainee has committed a terrorist offense;
    • Requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to approve all applications for detention beyond seven days.
  • Delete the amendment in clause 34 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act section 31(1) allowing for the drawing of adverse inferences in the context of post-charge questioning  and make explicit that all post-charge questioning must take place in the presence of a lawyer (clauses 34-36) ;
  • Amend Part 4 (clauses 51-68) to ensure that the system for imposing notification requirements is fair and proportionate by, at a minimum:
    • Making the decision to impose and the duration of such requirements the result of an individualized assessment of the risk of recidivism;
    • Striking the possibility for indefinite notification requirements;
    • Striking clause 66 and schedule 5 to remove notification requirements for persons convicted outside the UK.
  • Amend clause 82 to narrow the definition of terrorism to ensure acts aimed at influencing the government are criminalized only where their purpose is to coerce or unduly compel it to act or abstain from acting.