Robin Wilton's esoterica

Back in March 2005, as the Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed into law, I commented on the very questionable notion of justice which it embodied - particularly the 'control orders' which were such a prominent feature of it.

Almost exactly a year later, a High Court judge ruled against the Act, describing the control order process as 'conspicuously unfair', and the Act itself as 'incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights'.

Control orders continue to be issued under the current Home Secretary, John Reid. According to this report, they are less restrictive than the ones originally issued, so as to avoid the need for the Government to break openly with the European Convention on Human Rights and claim an 'opt-out'.

Now, Mr Justice Sullivan has issued a further ruling to the effect that a further six control orders are incompatible with the Convention and must be quashed. As before, the government has stated its intent to appeal against the ruling.

What seems strange to me is this: control orders were introduced as a 'preventive' measure... in other words, to stop someone who has not yet committed a crime from doing so; control orders are enforced 'on suspicion' that someone might do something. Because of the lack of judicial oversight of the process, the lack of any appeal option and the lack of any criteria for a control order to be lifted once it has been imposed, we are simply asked to take it on trust that control orders are being appropriately applied.

It seems to me that the 7/7 bombings (which the existence of control orders did not prevent), the mistaken shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes and the more recent full-scale anti-terror raid in Forest Green offer compelling evidence that that is asking a lot.

Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary sacked over the question of 'missing' foreign prisoners, has lost none of his bullishness, it seems. In a series of media appearances (on BBC's Newsnight and Radio 4's 'On The Ropes', for instance) he has openly criticised his successor, described Tony Blair as having lost authority and leadership, and continued to maintain that his dismissal was the wrong move. Other ministers, including former Home Secretary David Blunkett, have retorted that he would serve himself and his party better by shutting up, rather than "bitching" about thePrime Minister..

Interestingly, Mr Clarke was absent from the back benches of the House of Commons for today's 'Prime Minister's Questions' (PMQs) - the first since this round of public criticism.

In his 'On The Ropes' interview (archived here for about the next 5 days) John Humphrys noted that Mr Clarke had been one of the architects of Labour's orginal electoral victory. In the subsequent discussion about spin and politics, Mr Clarke said that "the people who have the real power ... are the media, not the politicians [because] my words, as Home Secretary, reach the people of the country through the media".

The government has complete democratic decision-making power under its electoral mandate, and a full set of Civil Service institutions with which to implement its policies; it controls taxation and the public purse, the armed services and law enforcement agencies: it is the legislature and the executive - but apparently that's not power. I think that's a revealing perspective in itself.