BRITISH HIGH COURT REBUKES ANTI-TERRORISM LEGISLATION
In a landmark decision, the High Court has ruled that the 1989 Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) violated the most basic tenet of British justice - the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Further, as a corollary to this, the Court also ruled that the Act violated Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights - the right to a fair trial. The decision is thought to have broad implications , not only in terms of its defence of civil liberties, but, as regards its impact on both ongoing and prior prosecutions.
Coming on March 30th, the Decision was born as an outgrowth of efforts pursued on behalf of four Algerian men (Sofiae Keilene, Farid Boukemiche, Sofiane Souidi, Fateh Rechachi) arrested in 1997, and charged under provisions 16A and 16B of the PTA. In essence, 16A states that a person is guilty of criminal conduct if he possesses, or has on his premises, any article that may give rise to "reasonable suspicion" that it is to be employed in the pursuit of terrorism; further, proof by the accused that the article was not to be employed for such purposes is required in defence of such charges. Section 16B addresses documentation of use to "terrorists", and precludes the collection, recording, or possession of any information "likely to be useful to terrorists", and further requires proof of "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" in defence of such. The items the Algerians were cited for were, notably, "chemical containers, radio equipment, manuals documents, credit cards, and sums of money".
The decision was delivered by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. The Court unanimously found that vital sections of the PTA violated the accused's rights "in a blatant and obvious way".
Since the significant provisions of the PTA came into force in 1995, this case had been the first prosecution pursued under it. Given this, the Court reasoned that the provisions were not a vital defence against terrorism. However, in Northern Ireland, there have been over 100 convictions on violations similar to those in the cited PTA sections, and the ruling now sets a precedent for future litigation in these cases. Further, the decision was immediately forwarded to another British court where two Palestinians are seeking to appeal their 1996 conviction for participation in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli Embassy. Here, Public Interest Immunity Certificates (PIIs) have been utilized to suppress the dissemination of facts the defence believes in the possession of MI5, which is acknowledged to have information regarding the Embassy bombing.
The Court's decision is viewed as a significant setback for the efforts of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who is appealing it to the House of Lords. Of particular note, as regards the issues surrounding the decision, is the Parliament's passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) which (although not yet in force) conflicts with the PTA's statutes. Although the DPP was cognizant of the implications of the HRA, the DPP argued for prosecution; but, the Court felt that any convictions now obtained would likely be negated on an appeal made after the provisions of the HRA came into force, if not (on the grounds of UK violation of article 6) in The European Court of Human Rights prior to this. Further, the High Court's passing of its ruling to the court hearing the Palestinian case appears indicative of the HRA's potential for broad judicial impact.
Sources: The Times, 31.3.99; The Guardian, 31.3.99; Intelligence No.97, 19.4.99.