The Legal Response to Terrorism

A stellar line up spoke at the annual Oxford conference for the Lib Dem Lawyers last weekend. The subject was “The Legal Response to Terrorism”, and speakers included Shami Chakrabarti, Nick Clegg and Lord Carlile of Berriew QC.

In the second session on the subject of Safeguarding Civil Liberties, the director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, and the government’s independent reviewer of terrorist legislation and Lib Dem peer, Lord Carlile had an animated debate about the seductive effect of secrecy – does the classification of information or documents as “secret” affect the way in which those who are permitted to see the information judge that information? Ms Chakrabarti advocated a sceptical rather than trusting approach as the basis for our constitution. Lord Carlile lamented the death of trust in the government and those in positions of authority following on from the “dodgy dossier” which lead to the war in Iraq.

The speakers varied in their outlooks towards this crucial issue of safeguarding our liberties. Lord Carlile’s approach, as the government’s independent reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation, is that we are fortunate to be living in one of the most advanced countries in the world, when it comes to the protection of our rights and freedoms. He drew the comparison between the UK and the French and Spanish governments and said that, whilst there were some infringements of liberties which were taking place, for example control orders, our rights as British citizens are some of the best protected worldwide. His view was that taken as a whole, our society was sufficiently protected.

Ms Chakrabarti disagreed and powerfully stated the case for the rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights as a code which protected all of us and which was designed to do so in the aftermath of the Second World War by those who had lived through it, and not by long-haired 60s hippies. She asserted that the human rights framework provided a basis for a free and safe society as a consequence of its egalitarian ethos.

Ben Emmerson QC specialises in human rights. He acted in the House of Lords case about the admissibility of evidence obtained under torture. He asserted that the British have a tradition of protecting rights which dates back to the 13^th century. He questioned how effective much of the recent anti-terrorism legislation is in combating the risk. Additionally he argued for the constitutional principle as the basis from which the government should act, with respect for human rights at the heart of this, and for competent drafting of legislation.

In the first session Nick Clegg MP and Dr Sally Leivesley, an expert in catastrophic risk, dealt with the question of what was the threat to civil society, and how we would combat it. Nick Clegg focussed on the phrase “civil society” and what we meant by this. Dr Leivesley gave examples of how the civil law might not be equipped to cope with the aftermath of a catastrophic event. Her view was that the steps to be taken to prevent a terrorist attack should be decided by the potential consequences of an attack, rather than by reference first to the human rights affected by that preventive measure.

Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP gave the conference a view from Brussels of the attempts which are being made by her and her colleagues to hold governments to account, particularly in the area of “extraordinary rendition”. Fighting terrorism and providing security for EU citizens is, she stated, as much if not more at the core of the EU’s tasks. Human rights is also a core mission of the EU. Dr Shelley Deane looked at other nations’ attempts to legislate in this area, including Uganda, Colombia and Russia and called for governments to pay attention to “hearts and minds” when considering how to deal with this threat.

In the final session Evan Harris, Simon Hughes and Lord Goodhart QC gave their views on the steps which we can and do take to hold the government to account on this issue. The sterling work by our peers was recognised by the conference. Parliamentary reform was seen as crucial, as was a better definition of the word “terrorism”.

Note: Lord Carlile is undertaking a consultation exercise as to the definition of the word “terrorism” for legislative purposes. If you wish to contribute, please contact him at: carlileqc@aol.com