This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/25/abu-qatada-human-rights-law-secret-justice

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Abu Qatada outcome is a hollow victory for human rights law The Abu Qatada outcome is a hollow victory for human rights law
(35 minutes later)
What will the name Abu Qatada signify to future students of the British legal system? Jordan’s courts convicted Qatada in 2000, while he was in the UK, based on information extracted from alleged co-conspirators by means of torture. Last year, Jordan agreed that any retrial in person would not rely on torture evidence. Without recourse to torture evidence, the prosecution case against him collapsed on Wednesday. The effects on our legal system associated with Qatada are longer-lasting.What will the name Abu Qatada signify to future students of the British legal system? Jordan’s courts convicted Qatada in 2000, while he was in the UK, based on information extracted from alleged co-conspirators by means of torture. Last year, Jordan agreed that any retrial in person would not rely on torture evidence. Without recourse to torture evidence, the prosecution case against him collapsed on Wednesday. The effects on our legal system associated with Qatada are longer-lasting.
After 9/11, faced with the urgent need to do something and to be seen doing something, the government passed emergency legislation authorising the indefinite detention of “certified” foreign nationals in the UK who presented a risk to national security. They could not be deported because of the danger that they would be tortured in their home countries, but as suspected international terrorists they were deemed too dangerous to be left at large. Qatada was one of the 14 detainees, all Muslims, held in Belmarsh prison. No criminal charges were laid against them and there was no intention to send Qatada to Jordan, or anywhere else, to face trial. The strategic aim was to disrupt a network of radical preachers from influencing and supporting acts of violence in the UK.After 9/11, faced with the urgent need to do something and to be seen doing something, the government passed emergency legislation authorising the indefinite detention of “certified” foreign nationals in the UK who presented a risk to national security. They could not be deported because of the danger that they would be tortured in their home countries, but as suspected international terrorists they were deemed too dangerous to be left at large. Qatada was one of the 14 detainees, all Muslims, held in Belmarsh prison. No criminal charges were laid against them and there was no intention to send Qatada to Jordan, or anywhere else, to face trial. The strategic aim was to disrupt a network of radical preachers from influencing and supporting acts of violence in the UK.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac), a court that can hear classified evidence from the government without disclosing it to the public or the appellant, heard the detainee’s appeal against certification and detention. Reading the open decision today, the case against Qatada can only be inferred. Siac saw some classified material suggesting a connection to al-Qaida. Qatada was said to be a spiritual adviser to terrorists and during the 1990s had claimed for himself great influence over the Algerian community in London. But the evidence that he posed a serious threat remains classified. Heard behind closed doors, the case against him was not tested to a high standard – and certainly nowhere near the criminal standard of reasonable doubt. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac), a court that can hear classified evidence from the government without disclosing it to the public or the appellant, heard the detainee’s appeal against certification and detention. Reading the open decision this week, the case against Qatada can only be inferred. Siac saw some classified material suggesting a connection to al-Qaida. Qatada was said to be a spiritual adviser to terrorists and during the 1990s had claimed for himself great influence over the Algerian community in London. But the evidence that he posed a serious threat remains classified. Heard behind closed doors, the case against him was not tested to a high standard – and certainly nowhere near the criminal standard of reasonable doubt.
In a landmark case in late 2004, the House of Lords ruled indefinite detention to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The government responded by creating control orders. The detainees, including Qatada, were released into house arrest (although some were transferred to psychiatric hospital). A few months later, the government announced that diplomatic “assurances” had been obtained from foreign governments guaranteeing that the individuals would not be tortured on return to their home countries, and so they could be deported. The courts upheld the legality of the regime now known as “deportation with assurances”. But when the question turned to the prospect of a criminal trial based on evidence obtained by torture, further assurances were deemed necessary to prevent this from happening. It is a basic principle that torture evidence is unreliable, unfair and inhumane. Full assurances were finally obtained from Jordan in July 2013. With the agreement in place, Qatada went voluntarily. In a landmark case in 2004, the House of Lords ruled indefinite detention to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The government responded by creating control orders. The detainees, including Qatada, were released into house arrest (although some were transferred to psychiatric hospital). A few months later, the government announced that diplomatic “assurances” had been obtained from foreign governments guaranteeing that the individuals would not be tortured on return to their home countries, and so they could be deported. The courts upheld the legality of the regime now known as “deportation with assurances”. But when the question turned to the prospect of a criminal trial based on evidence obtained by torture, further assurances were deemed necessary to prevent this from happening. It is a basic principle that torture evidence is unreliable, unfair and inhumane. Full assurances were finally obtained from Jordan in July 2013. With the agreement in place, Qatada went voluntarily.
In light of this history, one might think that the acquittal signifies the robustness of human rights law in protecting basic norms of justice while enabling the disruption of allegedly dangerous networks. Indeed, it is a shame that the UK government doesn’t spin it this way, though no surprise, given that it unsuccessfully fought against this outcome all the way, contributing substantially to the £1.7m legal costs in the process. On Wednesday, the Home Office sought to set the media agenda by reassuring the public that Qatada will not return to the UK, even though there is no suggestion whatsoever that he wants to. Should he try, he would face another lengthy appeal to Siac, with no clearer idea of the nature of the evidence against him than he had before. Before that, he would have to be de-listed from the UN security council’s al-Qaida sanctions list, via an opaque process that involves no court whatsoever (not even a secret one). If he somehow succeeded, he would return only to further detention and house arrest. Hardly worth the candle.In light of this history, one might think that the acquittal signifies the robustness of human rights law in protecting basic norms of justice while enabling the disruption of allegedly dangerous networks. Indeed, it is a shame that the UK government doesn’t spin it this way, though no surprise, given that it unsuccessfully fought against this outcome all the way, contributing substantially to the £1.7m legal costs in the process. On Wednesday, the Home Office sought to set the media agenda by reassuring the public that Qatada will not return to the UK, even though there is no suggestion whatsoever that he wants to. Should he try, he would face another lengthy appeal to Siac, with no clearer idea of the nature of the evidence against him than he had before. Before that, he would have to be de-listed from the UN security council’s al-Qaida sanctions list, via an opaque process that involves no court whatsoever (not even a secret one). If he somehow succeeded, he would return only to further detention and house arrest. Hardly worth the candle.
If it is a victory for human rights law then, it is a pyrrhic one. Abu Qatada will come to symbolise a brief period in legal history when a parallel system of secret justice was established, the enforcement of human rights norms portrayed as naive or even dangerous, and the legal mechanisms for full surveillance of the population put in place. None of that was necessary to achieve the outcome we saw this week, but the impact will be with us for many years. The twist in the tale is that Qatada, the bogeyman for so long, now appears to Jordan as a preferable kind of Islamist to the horrific Islamic State. We should take the time to reflect carefully on this, because it throws into stark relief two views of our society. One is a society with robust ideas of justice and fairness, and systems for protecting them. The other is a society so obsessed with controlling external threats that it risks destroying itself in the process. We should ask ourselves which one we prefer to be.If it is a victory for human rights law then, it is a pyrrhic one. Abu Qatada will come to symbolise a brief period in legal history when a parallel system of secret justice was established, the enforcement of human rights norms portrayed as naive or even dangerous, and the legal mechanisms for full surveillance of the population put in place. None of that was necessary to achieve the outcome we saw this week, but the impact will be with us for many years. The twist in the tale is that Qatada, the bogeyman for so long, now appears to Jordan as a preferable kind of Islamist to the horrific Islamic State. We should take the time to reflect carefully on this, because it throws into stark relief two views of our society. One is a society with robust ideas of justice and fairness, and systems for protecting them. The other is a society so obsessed with controlling external threats that it risks destroying itself in the process. We should ask ourselves which one we prefer to be.