PTA debate [1991]
01 January 1991
PTA debate [1991]
artdoc June=1991
On 4 March Parliament voted by 303 votes to 138 votes to renew the
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 for another year.
A few days before the debate the Labour Party, which had been opposed to
the Act since 1982, offered to participate in all-party talks to secure a
new approach to combating terrorism. During the debate the Home Secretary
rejected the initiative and argued that "rhetoric against terrorism is not
enough: one has to be prepared to act".
The PTA has been found to be in violation of the European Convention on
Human Rights. In November 1988 the European Court of Human Rights held in
the case of Brogan and others that it constituted a breach of Article 5(3)
because none of the four applicants were brought "promptly" before a
judicial authority. The Government's response was to enter a derogation -
a refusal to comply - to the Convention, in December 1988. Since that
decision, there has been another challenge from two more people who were
held for more than four days without charge and without being brought
before a judge. The case was declared admissible by the European
Commission at the beginning of March.
Following the release of the Birmingham Six on 14 March, the Home
Secretary made a statement to Parliament announcing the setting up of a
Royal Commission into the criminal justice system. He pointed out that the
Government had already introduced various measures in recent years which
would make it less likely that a similar miscarriage of justice would
occur. Roy Hattersley, however, challenged the Home Secretary and pointed
out that arrests made in similar circumstances to those of the Birmingham
Six would not attract the protection provided by the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE). The Home Secretary responded that there were a
number of provisions under PACE which would apply. He did not, however,
point out the crucial differences in the police powers, custody provisions
and detention regimes for those detained under the PTA in comparison with
those detained under the ordinary criminal law. During the debate there
were only two references to the PTA.
Statewatch no 2, May/June 1991