APL HAILS THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT ON ‘STOP AND SEARCH’ REGIME IN UK

Human Rights Lawyer Barrister Amjad Malik Chairman (APL) an Association of Pakistani origin Solicitors, Barristers, Judges has welcomed European Court of Human Rights ruling of 12 January where they found that Britain’s stop-and-search powers were illegal, and ruled powers under Britain’s Terrorism Act of 2000 (s.44) to stop and search people without grounds violated Article 8 ‘right to family and private life’  of the European convention on human rights.

APL maintained that we have been long concerned about the usage of administrative measures including ‘Stop and search’ and powers of arrest for 28 days without charge on suspicion in terror related offences and terrorism legislation have all been targeted against Muslim community and looking at statistics in last 10 years of convictions and the number of people who have been arrested, harassed, and either released and or were declared not guilty by courts are mostly Muslims.

APL chair said that British courts have played genuinely a praiseworthy role by separating the chaff from grain. They ensured that due process of law, fair trial and citizens liberties remain intact whilst govt on the name of terrorism continued eroding civil liberties to protect the public and look after the interest of the state. There are many examples where in last 10 years courts held a different view that of the executive, in 1999 Muslim Imam Shafiq Ur Rehamn won his appeal on facts by the first tribunal (SIAC) which was  set up to adjudicate national security deportations, same tribunal hears appeals of all foreigners who faces eviction and Pakistani students are facing their appeals before them now. Law Lords in 2004 refused to allow 17 Saudis to be detained forever without a charge creating a sense of justice in the victim communities. On 16 December 2004, A specially-convened committee of nine law lords in House Of Lords upheld an appeal by nine foreigners who have been detained without charge or trial, most of them in Belmarsh prison, London, for around three years and ruled that, ‘detaining foreigners without trial under emergency anti-terror powers breaks European human rights legislation. ’the law lords ruled eight-to-one in favour of the detainees after hearing arguments that detaining people indefinitely on suspicion alone contravened democratic rights and international obligations. Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior lord of appeal and former lord chief justice, said that the powers under which the men were held were incompatible with European human rights laws because they “discriminate on the ground of nationality or immigration status”.  In the same tone ‘control orders’ were scrapped if they were unreasonably restrictive in free movement jeopardising liberty of foreign individuals facing curfew of more than 20 hours.  In 2008, one of the friends of Osama, Abu Qatada was released on bail when continuous detention was sought without charge. Abu Hamza Al Masri was offered a fair trial and free legal access to his lawyers whilst he was facing strip off his nationality and extradition to United Sates on terrorism charges and Samina Malik’s conviction was quashed on the premises that it was too excessive. In 2009 House of Lords in the case of (AE) –held that Control orders in national security cases are a breach of Art.6 (right to fair trial) as secret hearing does not give a summary and reasons to the appellants in detention and In 2009, High Court ruled that in secret hearings, applicant is entitled to know the charges and summary of evidence against them on which he is in detention, otherwise the whole process would be unfair. On 1 December 09, in a landmark ruling, two High Court judges, Lord Justice Laws and Mr. Justice Owen, in a case of a 23 years old Pakistani citizen (XC) Unanimously, ruled that imposing control orders breaches right to a fair trial, because a suspect held is not given “sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions and that the bail applications in civil terror suspicion cases should be treated in the same way as control order cases, where terror suspects must be given an “irreducible minimum” of information about the case against them.

Looking at the judicial trend and European Court ruling which will force UK to amend the stop-and-search legislation as part of the government’s policy to combat terror — to ensure it complies with human rights, as Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows the Home secretary to authorize random searches by police under certain circumstances, which will come under review is welcomed by the Pak Lawyers association. We are assured that Courts have not only gained respect but allowed the government to function as well as keeping the civil liberties intact. It was a fine balance between the interest of individuals and that of the state which was kept under check by Courts as opposed to its counterparts US courts where detention in Guantanamo Bay and torture continued unnoticed. Life would be miserable if on the basis of fear, further fear is created and these liberties which were achieved by continuous sacrifices of our ancestors are lost on the basis of some threats of a few fanatic and or a tiny group, who are, and will remain in a small minority, and implementation on such judgement is vital to seek good community relations and tackling radicalisation with hand and glove approach.

14 January 2010