Judges accuse Blunkett over terror suspect

The Guardian
March 9, 2004
By Audrey Gillan

Judges yesterday accused the home secretary of detaining a man for 16 months in a high security prison without charge or trial on evidence that was "wholly unreliable and should not have been used to justify detention".

They ruled that David Blunkett had used evidence that was "not reasonable" and "exaggerated" links with al-Qaida in order to detain the man on suspicion of being an international terrorist. They ordered that the 37-year-old Libyan be released from Belmarsh high security prison last night.

But in defiance of the judgment, the Home Office interceded to prevent the man, called M for legal reasons, being released, saying it wished to appeal against the decision. The government was granted a 24 hour stay in an emergency hearing with a judge and the matter will be considered at the court of appeal today.

The man is the only one of 13 detainees to win his appeal against detention.

The home secretary is adamant that the man is a threat to national security and should remain locked up. But three judges sitting at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) said he had made assertions that were not supported by evidence and some that were "clearly misleading". Mr Blunkett had consistently exaggerated the extent to which documentary evidence linked M with al-Qaida.

The three judges said: "There can be no doubt that al-Qaida and those who support its aims do constitute a very real threat. However, although we pay the greatest respect to the views of the respondent [the home secretary] and those who advise him, we would be failing in our duty if we did not act on our own judgment. We believe that the assessments placed before us and the respondent are not reliable and that reasonable suspicion is not established."

Much of the evidence against M was heard in secret with none of his legal team allowed to attend. Assertions made, some by security service witnesses, were "clearly misleading when the source documents are looked at and some can only be justified if the worst possible view is taken of the appellant". A special branch report was "inaccurate and conveyed an unfair impression".

As soon as the appeal was granted, lawyers for the home secretary said he would ap peal. Mr Justice Collins, one of the judges, told them they were trying to dress up something they did not like as a point of law.

M's lawyer, Gareth Peirce, said outside the court: "The home secretary has always said that SIAC could deliver justice. We have always said that it could not, that it has hearings in secret and we could not represent our clients."

She added: "The home secretary... is making more than a mockery of justice."

M has been held in Belmarsh along with eight other detainees under emergency legislation rushed through parliament after the September 11 attacks. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 allows the home secretary to detain foreign nationals without charge or trial indefinitely if he suspects they may be involved in terrorism.

M has admitted that he has been involved with a group opposed to Colonel Gadafy's regime in Libya. He claimed asylum in the UK in 1994 but was refused, though he was never removed.

Yesterday, the judges also dismissed the appeal of Abu Qatada, the London-based Muslim cleric regarded by intelligence sources as one of al-Qaida's main spiritual leaders in Europe, saying "he is a truly dangerous individual".

They said: "The appellant was heavily involved, indeed was at the centre in the UK of terrorist activities associated with al-Qaida."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Original link

 
_____
Nieuwe Oorlog 2004 | Ander Nieuws week 12