.png&w=3840&q=75)
Counter productive
Simply rebranding counter-terror laws is not enough – the government must focus on thorough investigation and uncovering evidence, argues Lucy Corrin
Following the counter-terrorism review, new counter-terrorism proposals announced by the home secretary Teresa May are to be included in the protection of freedoms bill.
To be welcomed are the new proposals suggesting an end to 28-day detention without charge and a return to a maximum of 14 days. The measures also propose ending the indiscriminate use of terrorism stop and search powers.
More controversially perhaps, the bill is also expected to include the repeal of control orders from December 2011 and their replacement with 'a more focused and targeted regime which carries restrictions similar to powers used in the civil justice system'. These orders will be called terrorism prevention and investigation measures (TPIMs).
Reasonable suspicion
The procedure for imposing a control order has been redrafted. The secretary of state must now have 'reasonable grounds to believe' rather than 'reasonable grounds to suspect' that a person may pose a terrorist threat. Whether this amounts to any practical distinction is unclear but very doubtful.
One main area of concern with the existing control order regime was the level of restrictions that could be imposed. On this there have been some small steps forwards with the withdrawal of some of the most draconian powers: wholesale bans on internet and phone use, forced relocation away from friends and family and the ability to control who a suspect associates with are all to be dispensed with. Overnight residence requirements (tagging and curfews), limited house arrest and surveillance will continue.
TPIMs will, as a general rule, be limited to two years duration. However, that period may be extended if new information emerges that leads the secretary of state to believe that the person remains a danger. This renders TPIMs potentially indefinite.
Lord Carlile, the government's reviewer of counter-terror laws, has commented that the replacement TPIMs will provide the same level of public protection. It seems that control orders effectively remain in all but name, but have been rebranded to be more palatable.
Keeping quiet
The home secretary remains silent upon the continuing issue of due process for those suspected of terrorism and whether suspects subject to control orders are to ever have a fair hearing based on solid evidence. Without this they are unable to ever challenge fully the assertion that they are a suspected terrorist.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC, in reviewing the proposals, suggested that control orders should only be utilised if they are accompanying a genuine, ongoing criminal investigation.
The government is not doing enough to encourage thorough investigation evidence gathering for the purposes of charging and putting terrorism suspects on trial. It seems that the state of limbo which currently exists for terrorism suspects is only going to continue.
Copyright & permissions