UK Liberty

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.


3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. David Mery said, on April 23, 2008 at 12:11 am

    See the excellent research work of Ben Hayes on this at Statewatch. Latest is at

    br -d

  2. ukliberty said, on April 23, 2008 at 10:32 am

    Thanks David

  3. ukliberty said, on April 23, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    I know it’s no laughing matter but I had to smile at the following as it’s just so farcical (and undoubtedly true):

    “Buying shoes which are not considered to be ‘basic expenses’ is a criminal offence. One of the designees sought clarification from the Treasury on whether he could buy three new pairs of shoes: smart shoes, trainers and hiking boots. To date, the Treasury has yet to answer this question, deeming it so complex as to require advice from a minister.”

    More seriously Ben Hayes alleges that “the police have not even bothered to interview ‘K’, ‘A’, ‘M’, ‘Q’ or ‘G’ about their alleged involvement in financing acts of terrorism”. If this is true (again I wouldn’t be surprised if it was) the process seems completely unjustifiable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: