Media Room UK Anti Terrorism Act Briefing
| UK Anti Terrorism Act Briefing |
 |
| Written by SEDAR Institute | |||||
| Thursday, 23 July 2009 04:43 | |||||
|
UK Anti Terrorism Act Briefing Douglas McKenna (Counter-Terrorist Unit at Scotland Yard) Douglas McKenna was a former detective in the counter-terrorist unit at Scotland Yard. He said that that terrorism is a crime but unique crime because of its political dimension. Whilst investigations follow the normal investigation procedures but the manner terrorism is carried out is different from the normal crime. Because of the trouble in Ireland, the norm was to criminalize terrorist acts. So criminal laws were used to treat terrorism. There were no special legislation; normally they were charged under murder, or attempt to murder. He further elaborated that in 2000, the Terrorism Act 2000 was enacted. The period of detention was increased to 5 days, but instead of giving authority to the ministry, was given to the courts. Preventive detention was not allowed, as preventive detention is only to gather evidence and ask for information. Later police was granted 5 days, then 7 days, then 14 days. He said that after discussions, 28 days was given. After the normal 48 hours, must go in front of the magistrate to appeal for the first 14 days. Magistrates are specially assembled. Charge must be laid down by the Public Prosecutor. The person conducting must be satisfied investigation is done expeditiously. At the end must either to charge or release because of the 28 days limitation. Douglas also mentioned that the European convention of human rights was adopted into the British system when the Human Rights Act was taken. As a result of the Human Rights Act, other statues were also amended to be in line. No punishment without law was an important feature. No punishment unless determined by court. The Control Orders allow the Home Minister to sign an order as the last resort. This is where investigation is conducted and not possible to charge, or cannot deport also because it will affect his safety. It can only restrict movement, for instance curfew, movement from places, access to communication. It has to be renewed, Home Minister will demand assurance that this is the last resort and investigation is impossible. It was in his opinion that in Malaysia, the ISA is still important. He told us that the police here say they are thankful for the ISA and emergency ordinance. Because of the social condition, he says he can understand why it’s used. He warned however that there still are inherent dangers. If the police are not used to dealing with evidential investigation, they will become incapable. If the police depend too much on the ISA, they wont be able to deal with terrorism with normal crime procedures at all. He concluded that before you do away with whatever laws used to deal with terrorist must make sure the existing laws are adequate. He said maybe the people here are used to the ISA and terrorist cases are avoided. But at the end, must be pragmatic. He asked if the criminal system match fit to deal with terrorism cases. He says if yes then we can have laws that work in parallel with each other. Question & Answer On the question if there was a sun set provision? Douglas said yes, with periodic renewal in parliament. Like the period of detention, initially 90 days, but then rejected. But 28 days is not really enough. As transnational info sharing is not so easy. Forensic analysis is also not so easy and cannot be done so fast. That’s why 90 days, the need to hold them pending enquiries, so can get info. But at the end was a 28 days compromise. On the question of the Pakistani case, the person can be deported, what if it’s a fellow British? Douglas said that the control order would be use. Because there are cases where cannot be deported because of the safety of the one deported. On the question of how to ensure terrorist is controlled but at the same time do not want the power to be abuse? Douglas said that when things are not transparent suspicion arises. This is the normal tendency. In UK use murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to murder to deal with terrorist cases. Terrorism act is just to support it. In Malaysia maybe ISA is used because present criminal justice system is not adequate. It cannot deal with criminal cases at a large scale. On the question if there are any guidelines to regulate this? Douglas said that the dilemma is to ensure public order. In UK, in gang robbery, let the plan to be carried out, catch just before carried out, to collect evidence. Just like drugs also. See process under close surveillance, to collect evidence and info of the syndicate. In terrorist cases, responsibility is much bigger. They must ensure that there is peace to the politicians. In terrorist cases operation is on a larger scale, might affect economy, lives and tourism, so there is a tendency to take preemptive measures. On the question that we do not want to abolish, just a review, so acts of terror can be addressed. Here cannot question substantive grounds, only procedural. It’ll be weird for here to abolish because western enact more and more laws. Douglas said that there is no preventive detention in the west or Europe. There are 2 things. Review board is under the home ministry. First step more independent composition of the review board might be the first step. Second, there is also the problem of material where it cannot be disclose because of public safety. Could be, state would appoint independent lawyer to represent the detainee where he is given access to sensitive material. By having trial, will make sure investigation is carried out diligently. Because not only have to satisfy police authority but the court also. On the question that there is no preventive detention Douglas said that it’s not exactly preventive detention. As it’s up to the court whether to extend. After 72 hours if needed, extend. After 72 hours if needed again, then extend again. So it’s actually up to the court to decide. On the question of what if Malaysia is a multiracial country? Douglas said that if people were to incite, can just prosecute, without the need to detain. Most places are multiracial. Society can be more mature. Don’t believe that one person can incite a riot. Can happen but not necessarily public tranquility will suddenly break down.
Share this page          |
|||||
| Last Updated on Friday, 02 October 2009 06:38 |
Upcoming Events
| No events |
