MPs were urged yesterday to vote against government proposals for ‘secret inquests’, and to reject plans for 42-day detention without charge by both human rights group Amnesty and INQUEST, the legal charity.
A parliamentary briefing paper warned against the government’s proposals for secret death in custody inquests.
The proposals are contained in Part 6, clauses 64-67, of the Counter Terrorism Bill 2008, which receives its second reading in the House of Commons today.
INQUEST is urging MPs to call for the withdrawal of Part 6 of the Bill immediately.
The measures contained in part 6 of the Bill give the Secretary of State extraordinary powers to intervene in inquests where sensitive information is involved.
Clauses in Part 6 provide for no-jury inquests held in private in cases of highly contentious deaths in custody or at the hands of state agents.
These would be presided over by security vetted coroners and vetted lawyers overseeing the evidence, and with hooded state witnesses.
The families of the deceased, such as the de Menezes family, their legal representatives and the public at large, would be excluded from the investigation process.
The measures have already been opposed by MPs and peers on the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the House of Commons Justice Committee, the Law Society and JUSTICE, all of whom have expressed similar concerns about Part 6 of the Bill.
Meanwhile, a host of high-profile figures released a letter voicing their opposition to the government’s plans to extend the pre-charge detention limit to 42 days in the Counter-Terrorism Bill.
Signatories to the letter include Patrick Stewart, Vivienne Westwood, Colin Firth, A C Grayling, Iain Banks, Ken Loach, Sir David Hare, Nick Broomfield, John le Carre and Lord Ahmed.
The letter calls on the government to abandon the proposal, stating that this would damage community relations and undermine human rights protected by international law.
It concludes: ‘Habeas corpus, which safeguards people from arbitrary detention by the state, is the bedrock of British justice.
‘A convincing case that it should be eroded has not been made by the government. The case that it should remain has been made for nearly 800 years.’
Official watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, also produced a parliamentary briefing warning that the provisions of the Bill to extend ‘the maximum amount of time that terrorist suspects can be held before being charged to 42 days – could be:
‘a. contrary to human rights law and may
‘b. breach the Race Relations Act.
‘If adopted, we may seek to use our legal powers to challenge the lawfulness of the provisions and to establish clear legal principles on the use of pre-trial detention.
‘The Commission believes that, given the potential impact on liberty, the likelihood of disproportionate impact on certain groups and the risk of operational error, a positive and compelling case must be made for the limited enabling provisions set out in the Counter-Terrorism Bill.
‘We consider that despite being restricted to particular and specific contingencies, the provisions as set out by the Home Office are as yet unlikely to meet the threshold tests of public interest, justification or fairness.’
