The government’s Counter-Terrorism Bill got through second reading unopposed yesterday: the real action will come in votes on specific amendments at a later stage. You can find the Bill and explanatory notes to it, here, and here’s the Hansard record of the debate, which was very one-sided – a few Labour MPs backed the government’s proposed and so-called “reserve power” to permit pre-charge detention of terror suspects beyond 28 days, but overwhelmingly those who spoke were against. I’d be astonished in the government can get this legislation through. A lot has been said about detention: I’d vote against this extension if I were an MP, and so it appears would most people who aren’t ministers.
A less noticed aspect of the Bill is Part 6, particularly clauses 64 and 65 which deal with inquests. Douglas Hogg and Joan Humble both expressed concern about them in the debate. Clause 64 gives the Home Secretary power to decide that an inquest be held without a jury where this is either in the interests of national security, “in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country” or “otherwise in the public interest”. And if she decides a jury should not hear the case, she can also, under clause 65, sack the coroner and replace him or her with one of her own choosing, whom she can then pay whatever she likes. She can also then sack her favourite if he or she fails to act as expected, and replace them with another hand-picked coroner.
These are outrageous provisions, clearly designed to deal with troublesome coroners like Andrew Walker, who, among other controversial statements and rulings, last year found that American forces unlawfully killed Lance Corporal Hull in Iraq in 2003 and criticised the US government – quite rightly – for its shameful refusal to cooperate with his inquest. Strangely enough, Walker was not reappointed as coroner at the end of his contract last year.
These attempts by the British and American governments to frustrate and now by legislation to manipulate inquests are a scandal, and all MPs should oppose them.
Outrageous indeed.
My concern is that the public are so inured to these daily encroachments on their liberties and the rule of law that they hardly respond to ever growing draconian measures. Time for most to seriously consider emigration, I think.
But at least the judiciary are prepared to oppose – that is something to be admired – and, just occasionally, the Lords can upset the march of intollerance and oppression.
Head of Legal, Thanks for covering this topic.
Coroner Andrew Walker was involved in the inquest of Azelle Rodney, who was shot dead in ‘an operation‘ by the Metropolitan Police on 30 April 2005, less than 3 months before the deaths of the July 7th victims & Jean Charles de Menezes.
In the Coroners Ruling of the death of Azelle Rodney dated 2nd August 2007 (available here) Andrew Walker highlighted that he could not discharge his duties & that inter alia his ruling would not comply with the obligations enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The proposed measures contained within Part 6 (Clauses 64 to 67) of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, are (in my view) only designed to permit malfeasance, rather than to uphold any pseudo-laudable issues of National Security.
What about the issues of UK Nationals’ security & liberty, which are being systematically eroded (in my view) with each (PII infested) terror ‘thoughtcrime’ trial and the ensuing legislative encroachments which are shoe-horned therefrom.
I believe that the attempted nefarious legislation changes contained within the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 [specifically the proposed power of the state to a) remove a jury and/or family members from an inquest & b) sack/appoint/replace any particular coroner of their choosing] are being hurriedly rushed into place prior to the upcoming inquests into the deaths of (primarily) the July 7th victims (& Jean Charles de Menezes).
Can anyone posit a reason why an inquest into a July Seveth victim should be subject to state interference? Why/how would ‘National Security’ be compromised in such an inquest? Is it because the government July 7th narrative would not then stand up to (further) scrutiny?