Robin Wilton's esoterica

Picking up news stories - particularly political stories - off the internet and radio, it's sometimes easy to get 'suckered in' by a good headline-writer. I have to keep reminding myself that the news editors want to make compelling coverage, and sometimes that zeal manifests itself in the form of a story which appears to involve, say, a direct conflict between one interest group and another. Occasionally it all goes a bit wrong, and any listener to Radio 4's 'Today' programme will probably have heard something like this from time to time:

Interviewer: "With us in the studio is Professor Gleedle of the University of Farge. Professor Gleedle, these results are a damning indictment of government policy, wouldn't you say?"

Gleedle: "Indeed I would, Ephemera; the figures are shocking, and reflect very poorly on both policy in this area and its execution."

Interviewer: "And joining us from our Bletherton studio, Jean McBrotherson of the think-tank Cumulus. Ms McBrotherson, how do you respond to that criticism?"

Ms McB: "Well, I think Professor Gleedle has a point. We've conducted a number of independent surveys, and all of them show that the public is simply not getting what it expected or wanted from this initiative. Frankly, it's a farcical waste of public money."

Interviewer: " ... "

Co-presenter: "And now, Gary with the sport..."

This makes it all the more reassuring when the initial interpretation of a news story is borne out by subsequent events. For instance, back in December of last year, the impression I got about the government's plans for 42-day detention without charge was that, among other things, the calculation of how long someone night actually spend locked up - and under which legal provisions, and with what judicial or parliamentary oversight - just seemed to be a confused mess. Nor did it seem realistic to assume that Parliament could debate a request for extended detention without seriously compromising any subsequent trial.

The Counter-Terrorism Bill (CTB) passed its first vote in the Commons by 9 votes notwithstanding, and duly went to the Lords for their consideration. The Constitution Committee has published a report here, the first 16 pages of which very clearly set out a number of concerns about the Bill. (This is, incidentally, a quite separate exercise to the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights [JCHR]).

Among other things, the Constitution Committee's report sketches out the complex existing legal picture into which the CTB must coherently fit. They note a number of pieces of legislation which have already defined powers in this area:

- Terrorism Act 2000

- Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

- Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Remember that? That's the one which introduced Control Orders. They're still around.)

- Terrorism Act 2006

In passing (noting that the JCHR has already commented on the human rights and civil liberties implications of the Bill) they remind us that the European Convention on Human Rights sets out the principle that anyone arrested must be informed "promptly" of the charges against them, and comment that it is questionable whether even the existing period of 28 days would constitute a 'prompt'  notification.

They then turn to the question of whether parliament can offer effective oversight of a process for extending the period of detention in response to a specific case or incident, and conclude that the government's proposals have not been "properly thought through". There are 'significant difficulties', they say, with the presumed need to at least inform Parliament of the "outline of the plot" and the "what, why and when" of it. They note that "Parliament will ... almost certainly need to operate without fully knowing the factual background".

They go on to describe the proposal as "ill-advised", and one which "risks undermining the right to a fair trial".

In other words, as well as the complex legal context set out earlier, the Committee's view is that the process itself is bound to give rise to one legal challenge after another, potentially calling into question the very basis of our legal system. Taking the broad view, it's hard to see how that works to the benefit of the general public, the law-enforcers, or of anyone innocent who is unfortunate enough to get caught up in these measures.

The initial impression  - that this Bill sets out measures which are confused and unworkable - now seems pretty accurate.