Draconian Terror Bill could haunt the North

Suzanne Breen reports on the implications of the The Prevention of Terrorism Act for human rights in Northern Ireland, amid fears of a return to the days of interment in the 1970s

The North's most prominent human rights' group has said that new anti-terrorist legislation could be used to place dissident republican suspects under house arrest or curfew, or to electronically tag them.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was controversially passed after a 32-hour marathon session by the British Parliament last week, is primarily aimed at post 9/11 terrorism.

However, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) said the British government could potentially use the legislation against suspected members or supporters of dissident groups if it was believed they posed a security threat in the North.

"This legislation is designed to deal with the terrorist threat post-9/11," said CAJ spokesperson Aideen Gilmore. "However, the fact that these laws are on the statute book means they could theoretically be used against dissident republican suspects too.

"If groups like the Real IRA were perceived as posing a security threat, then suspected members or supporters could be subject to control orders which would mean they could be placed under house arrest or curfew or electronically tagged."

But the Act could affect individuals from any organisation who are considered to be terrorism suspects, not just dissident republicans.

The Northern Ireland based CAJ is strongly opposing the legislation as is Liberty, its sister organisation in Britain. Aideen Gilmore said the historical experience of the North showed that draconian legislation did not work.

Some of the new measures were effectively a form of internment, she said.

"Internment did not succeed in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and it will not work here or anywhere else now. "We need to learn the lessons of the past. Victimising people and creating suspect terrorist communities solves nothing. From the 1980s onwards, many British politicians admitted that internment in Northern Ireland was a mistake.

"It seems bizarre that 20 years later they somehow think it could work in any part of the UK. The government is taking a massive retrograde step." The CAJ believes the new legislation could be in breach of the Human Rights' Act (2000).

The legislation was introduced because the British Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said that in some cases terrorist suspects couldn't be prosecuted in court because bugging evidence was not admissible or the intelligence services feared their sources would be disclosed.

A judge imposes the orders but critics say that citizens can have their liberty severely curtailed without trial or even knowing what is the case or the evidence against them.

Individuals on whom control orders are served could be banned from using the telephone or internet, and seeing or communicating with other people generally. They could also be required to report to specified places at certain times or to give access to their home to specified people.

A Northern Ireland Office spokesman said it was "exceptional legislation to be used in exceptional circumstances." The Northern Secretary would make any decisions "on a case-by-case basis taking cognisance of all relevant information", he said.

"The provisions of the Act allow the Secretary of State to apply to the courts for a control order on reasonable grounds that an individual is involved in terrorism-related activity and he considers it necessary to protect the public," the spokesman stated.

He added that the decision would be made in consultation with security advisers. Liberty and other civil rights' groups claim that "terrorism-related activity" could apply to someone giving verbal support to a terrorist group even though they weren't personally involved in acts of terrorism themselves.

It is argued that those subject to control orders will suffer the badge of criminality without the benefit of a trial, and will be denied the presumption of innocence.

The legislation was passed after the British parliament's longest and sometimes rowdiest sitting for 99 years. Tony Blair only managed to force it through the House of Lords when he offered a parliamentary mechanism in a year's time whereby it could be amended.

Until then, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats had opposed the bill.

After it was passed, Charles Clarke imposed control orders on ten former Belmarsh detainees who had been released on bail. The British Home Office this week conceded that a special phone number the ten men must ring to seek permission to meet people did not work.

Another suspect, P, who has no hands, received a phone he couldn't use because it hadn't been specially adapted. The lawyer for most of the detainees, Gareth Pierce, said it was "a shambles, an absolute mess".

Another detainee, an Algerian known as Q, had no money so he couldn't buy food for over 17 hours. He was later given £35 a week to live on. His lawyer, Natalie Garcia, said: "Life for him is pretty grim. He is cut off from all normal social contact."

The Home Office said it was experiencing "minor teething problems" with the control orders.