UK: The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
01 January 2005
- People subject to “control orders” limiting their rights and freedoms will not hear the evidence against them
In just 13 working days parliament agreed on the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA 2005). With a timetable "guillotine" imposed by the government (and agreed by a majority in the House of Commons) the Bill ended up being passed to and from the Commons to the House of Lords for the last three days. A majority in the Commons rejected amendments by the Lords, who in turn reimposed their amendments.
The opposition in the Commons came from the Conservative, Liberal and nationalist MPs and (depending on the vote around 30 Labour backbench MPs). In the Lords the opposition came from the Conservative and Liberal peers and, most importantly, what are known as the "cross-benchers" - peers not belonging to a party group including many ex-high level civil servants, judges and lawyers. The government found itself in a mess because the Parliament Act, which allows the them to over-rule the Lords, does not apply where a Bill has not been through the normal procedures - that is, for example, where the parliamentary timetable is subject to a guillotine.
In the end two issues remained on the table. The opposition's demand that the Bill include a "sunset clause" and that the standard of proof to impose "control orders" should be on "the balance of probabilities" (more than fifty per cent) rather than the lower standard of "reasonable grounds for suspecting" (that a person had been, or was, engaged in "terrorist-related" activities). The normal standard of proof in the criminal justice system is that a person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" by a jury.
On Friday, 11 March, these two issues were being "batted" back and forth. By early afternoon a "deal" was in the air, not on the standards of proof, but on the demand for a "sunset clause".
Opponents of the Bill were calling for a "sunset clause" - as had been put into the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (which allowed the 17 men to be held in Belmarsh prison). The ATCS 2001 is thus to expire in November 2006. The government, under pressure, said it could agree to an annual "review" - which as everyone knows is meaningless because an Act of Parliament cannot be amended through an annual review, it can only be accepted in full or rejected.
The government "compromise"that was finally agreed is a bit complicated and is not in the Act itself. The government, in the form of the Home Secretary, said that they intended to present a new Counter-Terrorism Bill to set out "preparatory" offences for terrorist-related activities. This would be published (after the general election) in the autumn and would be discussed in parliament at the same time as the first annual review of the PTA 2005. Moreover, MPs and peers would be given parliamentary time to seek to amend the PTA 2005. The "compromise" is based on a "promise".
The Act’s provisions
Article 1.3 of the Act sets out the powers "to make control orders". The "Secretary of State" (ie: the Home Secretary) is empowered to make an order against an individual and set out the conditions (eg: tagging) for suspected "terrorist related activity". Article 1.4 list the sixteen "conditions" which include restricting a person's work or occupation, banning them from using the internet, restricting movement (to a city or area) and getting permission for friends to visit - the "conditions" could affect a person's family too. Control orders (of both kinds) can be imposed for 12 months and can be renewed on "one or more occasions". There is nothing to stop control orders from becoming virtually permanent. If a person breaks the conditions of an order they can be sent to prison for up to five years without there being any further judicial examination of the case against them - they can be sent to prison without a trial taking place.
These sixteen conditions are termed "non-d