Downing Street Says » Anti Terror Legislation

Asked to clarify the timescale under which the Home Secretary envisaged the Belmarsh people being released if the Bill was not passed, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that as he had said all week, he was not going to get involved in individual cases. The point that the Home Secretary was making this morning during his interview was that if Part Four was simply renewed, as suggested, then it would be open to challenge by the courts. Therefore the decision for release would be one for the courts, and not one that would be taken by the Home Secretary with regards to national security, and that was the key point. The PMOS said that in terms of what happened this week, that depended on the legislation and its progress.

Asked to clarify that the Home Secretary was not saying that on Friday morning, the Belmarsh people would be released, the PMOS said that was the understanding, but people should check with the Home Office.

Asked if the Prime Minister would take part in voting on the Bill, the PMOS said it would be better to wait and see. The Government was taking this issue very seriously, and as Charles Clarke suggested this morning, that we were going to address the question of judicial input in such a way that would met people’s concerns. We also believed there was a fundamental point about national security, and the Government was taking it in that light.

Asked if the post amendment bill was not renewed each year, it would lapse immediately, the PMOS said: yes.

Asked to recall if any other Prevention of Terror Acts had changed upon their renewal process, the PMOS replied that the Prevention of Terrorism legislation did change from time to time in the light of experience. The PMOS said he was not able to confirm whether or not that was part of the annual renewal process or not.

Asked whether it would be the domestic or European court that would make the decision on release if Part Four was renewed, the PMOS said it could be either, but it would be up to the lawyers for the people concerned to take the cases to whatever court they thought appropriate.

Asked if therefore the Part Four renewal was still a possibility, the PMOS replied that our belief was that the right thing to do was to pass the legislation. That was what the Government was going to try and do.

Asked again about the annual review, and whether there was no option to change it in any way, but rather "just have the same thing", the PMOS said that a review meant that people reported to Parliament on its operation, and if there was a strong enough consensus that things needed to be changed, then that could be part of a review process. However, that was entirely a matter for Parliament. However, the important thing was that Parliament had an input into the process, and that had been clarified.

Put to the PMOS again that in absence of a new Bill, the Belmarsh detainees would have to be released, the PMOS said again that it was a matter for the lawyers to challenge in the courts. It was right that we publicised our strong belief that it could result in people being released.

Asked why the lawyers were not acting now, and what difference was there post Friday, as it was the same powers, people and lawyers involved, the PMOS replied that he was not a lawyer, and was not going to speak for the lawyers of the Belmarsh detainees. The situation at the moment was that it was accepted that the Government was trying to introduce legislation to deal with the House of Lords’ point. If it came to the point where the Government was seen to be acting in defiance of the House of Lord’s judgment, that would be differently viewed by the courts.

Asked that if the lawyers were to ask for release in Monday of the detainees, it would be some time before they were actually released, the PMOS told journalists what the Home Secretary had said this morning. Charles Clarke had said what needed to be taken into account were the actions of the courts towards bail in the light of the fact that we would be defying the House of Lord’s judgement. That was something that could not be guaranteed.
Asked if the Belmarsh detainees were being held under the Immigration Law or the Anti-Terrorism law, the PMOS said the journalist should check with the Home Office.

1 Comment »

What I’d like to see is these 20 guys to walk free after 3 years of illegal detention without charge, and their stories properly investigated by an inquiring press. The same inquiring press that did such a good job exploding the Iraq WMD myth. Many reporters did do a good job, but quite a few newspapers had chosen to publish government propaganda instead.

This story is closer to home and more difficult to ignore, for if these guys are totally clean — and who doubts it, for if the government had found any evidence they felt fit to lay before the public that wouldn’t be laughed at, they wouldn’t do so immediately for all the political gain that would entail — then it demolishes the myth that our politicians are fit to seize the power that they are now demanding.
Comment by Julian Todd — 10 Mar 2005 on 10:42 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, March 9, 2005

Anti Terror Legislation

1 Comment »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries