The BBC has reported that Lord West, the Security Minister, has told the House of Lords that some of the control orders on some suspected terrorists may have to be lifted. This comes in response to a unanimous ruling by nine Law Lords that it was unfair that individuals should be kept 'in ignorance' of the case against them.
This decision, which at least one Law Lord (Lord Hoffmann) said he regretted, followed a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (a Council of Europe and not a European Union institution). The ECHR rejected the notion that secret intelligence in such cases should always remain secret, apparently oblivious to the fact that unless secret intelligence is kept secret, its usefulness will be strongly curtailed in future, and those agents from whom it has been derived risk being killed.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the pull exerted by the European Court of Human Rights is now undermining Britain's capacity to counter terrorism effectively but also lawfully and proportionally. What's more, Britain faces a particuarly grave situation, not shared by many of the other European nations.
Ought our legislators to think more seriously now about how operations in the UK against terrorists can be both lawful and effective? The answer must be 'yes'. But lawfulness should not depend simply on the judgements of the ECHR, a body set up under very different circumstances a long time ago.
Ought secret intelligence in such cases to be kept secret? Again, the answer is 'yes', absolutely.
It seems hard to believe that those on control orders are wholly 'ignorant' of the charges against them. They may not know who who has supplied intelligence about them, when it was supplied, and why it was assessed as actionable. But as long as individuals or groups plot and operate in secret, we will need to secretly acquire their secrets. They will feel much safer if our security services are no longer able to do this. We, on the other hand, will be less secure as a result.
No comments:
Post a Comment