FRFI 178 April / May 2004
Since David Blunkett became the Labour government’s Home Secretary in 2001 he has managed to push the already rightward-moving agenda of his predecessor Jack Straw to almost unimaginable extremes. Every time a new asylum and immigration or ‘anti-terrorist’ law is passed a new one is waiting in the wings, with the promise of yet more repression; every time the prison population appears to have reached its all-time high, more criminal offences and longer sentences are created. This is no surprise, coming from a man whose ‘special adviser on race’ has himself been revealed as an unashamed racist. NICKI JAMESON reports on Blunkett’s latest measures.
Anti-terrorism
In February Blunkett announced a new plan to ‘pre-empt’ terrorist attack by extending the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA), rushed in following 11 September 2001.
ATCSA meant that Britain opted out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws imprisonment without trial, in order to implement indefinite detention for foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activity. Twelve men remain interned in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons without charge or trial, despite a ruling by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) that one should be freed because he has become severely mentally ill as a result of his imprisonment. The secretive SIAC tribunals are constructed as to be strongly weighted in favour of the government, yet even so SIAC also ruled that another man should be released because the evidence against him was ‘wholly unreliable and should not have been used to justify detention’. The Home Secretary appealed unsuccessfully and the man has now been freed. Prior to the appeal, Sir Brian Barder, a lay member of SIAC, resigned in protest at Blunkett’s behaviour and at earlier court judgments giving him ‘such wide discretion as to make his powers virtually unaccountable’.
The latest proposals go even further and include possible internment for British citizens as well as foreign nationals. Any trials will be in camera without a jury, with M15-approved judges and heavy vetting of defence lawyers.
All this is virtually certain to become law, particularly following the attack on Madrid; however the publicity surrounding the announcement of the proposals followed a predictable pattern, with the most contentious element widely publicised, attacked by civil liberties groups and then withdrawn, leaving the remainder of the proposals intact. (See FRFI 177 on Civil Contingencies Bill.) Controversy centred on the suggestion that the standard of proof required in a criminal trial would be reduced from ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to ‘on the balance of probabilities’. It is important that the standard of proof has not been weakened, but in a context where detention with no trial is firmly on the agenda, the victory may be a Pyrrhic one.
Asylum seekers and immigrants
The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill was passed to the House of Lords on 3 March 2004. Its measures include:
• a new criminal offence of arriving in the UK without valid immigration documentation
• additional powers to arrest, enter, search, seize documents and take fingerprints for immigration officers, whose powers are already extensive
• electronic monitoring of people subject to immigration control
• a requirement for carriers to provide documents on passengers to immigration officers
• the power for immigration officers to cancel leave to enter the country if the purpose of entry is different to that stated.
The most talked-up part of this Bill was, however, the proposal to ‘unify the immigration and appeals system into a single-tier appeal Tribunal with no right of appeal from, nor statutory review of, the Tribunal’s decision by the higher courts’. The story of Jacqueline and Thelma Konan (see separate article) graphically illustrates the importance for asylum seekers of appeal and review procedures. For now, a deal has been stitched up by the Lord Chancellor to amend the Bill and head off confrontation between the state and judiciary, but this clash is certain to resurface.
Blunkett and Blair have also made it clear that within the European Union movement is a two-tier affair, with more freedom for the citizens of richer nations. Measures are being introduced so that anyone from the poorer states in Eastern Europe that have recently joined the EU must obtain a ‘worker’s registration certificate’ and prove they can support themselves prior to coming to Britain. They cannot simply come here, like other EU citizens, with the aim of seeking work on arrival.
Attacking the youth
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act came into force on 20 January. Most of its measures are designed to introduce yet more repression of the working class, particularly the young, to criminalise entire communities and to give greater powers to a larger and more all-pervasive policing force, which consists of not just ordinary police officers, but private security street wardens. These wardens can now give on-the-spot fines for offences such as riding a bicycle on the pavement (£30), being drunk and disorderly (£40) or buying alcohol for a minor (£40).
If the police or street wardens have ‘reasonable grounds for believing that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places’ and that ‘anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality’, they have the power to then disperse any group of people from the area. The actual group assembled does not have to have actually done any intimidating; the ‘constable in uniform’ just has to have ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe their presence will do.
Inhumanity
Surpassing even the usual inhumanity of this government, David Blunkett has appealed to the High Court against the outcome of a judicial review won last year by freed framed prisoner Michael O’Brien. Michael, who was wrongly imprisoned for 11 years for the murder of a Cardiff newsagent, challenged the sick policy whereby framed prisoners released on appeal and awarded compensation are then asked to repay some of it to cover the cost of their keep while in prison. This is the stuff of those once futuristic films in which dissidents are tortured and charged for the electricity.
If Blunkett and the government lose this appeal, they have indicated that they will appeal to the House of Lords. Of course, using all the various channels of appeal open to you is fine when you are Home Secretary.
