UK Liberty

SFO to appeal BAE ruling

Posted in politicians on liberty, rule of law by ukliberty on April 22, 2008

The Telegraph:

The Government was embarrassed after two High Court judges condemned the Government’s “abject surrender’’ to pressure from Saudi Arabia in blocking the inquiry earlier this month.

New SFO director Richard Alderman, who took up his post on Monday, said he would seek leave to appeal at a High Court hearing on Thursday.

He said: “The judgment of the divisional court raises principles of general public importance affecting, among other things, the independence of prosecutors and the role of the court in reviewing a prosecutor’s evaluation of the public interest in a case like this.

“The court itself has commented that the issues raised in this case are important points of public interest. I will therefore be seeking permission to appeal to the House of Lords to obtain a definitive ruling.”

First impulse is to spy on people

Posted in database state, politicians on liberty, surveillance society by ukliberty on April 22, 2008

Says Guy Herbert of NO2ID, on the Government wanting to use supermarkets to find out where immigrants live.

Civil servants to be held more responsible for data loss

Posted in database state, politicians on liberty by ukliberty on April 22, 2008

Democracy and terrorism

Posted in law and order by ukliberty on April 22, 2008

The Times:

The power to designate people as terror suspects and freeze their finances was introduced without parliamentary debate by Mr Brown [using an Order in Council] when he was Chancellor.

A decision far too important to leave to our elected representatives.

Treasury officials maintain two lists of suspects — thought to number around 70 people in total — and have frozen bank accounts containing around £500,000 in all.

Mr Justice Collins indicated his concern this month during a hearing when he described elements of the sanctions as “unfair and not proportionate”. He criticised the requirement for designated suspects to apply to the Treasury for a licence before they could get legal advice about the designation.

The judge said that it was “totally unacceptable” that a suspect “needed a licence from the Executive and body imposing the sanctions”.

The suspect G was told that he had been designated by the UN Sanctions Committee and would have to appeal to it if he wanted his name removed.

He has found it impossible to appeal because he is not allowed to see the evidence that led to his designation, and he cannot discover who sits on the committee. He has also learnt that the Government, through which he is expected to lobby the UN, is the body that recommended that he be designated as a terror suspect.

(refer to Explanatory Note for background)


Been trying to leave the following on the Times website but it keeps saying that it isn’t working at present:

In essence, a member of the executive pointed the finger at each of these people and said, “this man is a terrorist”.  There has been no trial, no means to challenge the evidence, no right to appeal the decision.

It is worrying how many commentators think that is a fair and just process.