Opinion: Control Orders – 14 words to mull over

“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society”. These are the first fourteen words of the Preamble to the Constitution of the Liberal Democrats. It was this statement that finally made me decide to join the Lib Dems nearly ten years ago, and has kept me campaigning, working and fighting for and on behalf of our party ever since.

The control order debate has been raging lately, within the party and in the press. I wanted to explain why I feel so strongly about the issue of control orders and why I set up the group Liberal Democrats against Control Orders.

The Counter Terrorism Review is now expected to be published some time before Christmas. It’s still not clear which side is winning the argument on control orders. For many members and supporters of the Liberal Democrats, this is a crucial test.

If we, as Liberal Democrats, are all signed up to those three ideas of our society – fair, free and open – how does the control order regime fit in?

Are control orders fair?

In a word, no. For a start, the subject of a control order never knows the detail of the allegations being made against them. This is inherently unfair and offends against the most basic ideas of natural justice. There is also no presumption of innocence. The lawyer appointed to represent the subject only comes on board once the order is already in place. The lawyer never knows the details either so can’t ask questions in open court, or properly advise their client. Another lawyer is appointed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commision (SIAC) to act on behalf of the subject once the hearing is held in private (without the control order subject being present), but that lawyer is not allowed to disclose the details of the allegations to the controlled person, and so can never find out their response. (For a lawyer’s perspective on the work of trying to act for the subject of a control order see Matthew Ryder’s article.)

Kafkaesque is one way of describing it.

Furthermore, the control order may impose restrictions on activities such as where you can live (in one case the subject was forced to move 150 miles away from his family), who you can talk to, where you can go, whether or not you can use a telephone, or a computer, or a camera, curfews of up to 16 hours per day, policed by an electronic tag. Clearly a control order can have devastating consequences for anyone made the subject of an order, and their partner, and their children, if they have any.

Are control orders free?

In terms of financial cost, no. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has calculated that between 2006-2009 around £13 million has been spent on the regime, including some legal costs, but not the costs of policing the orders.

The litigation costs have been high with cases attacking individual orders being appealed, successfully, to the Supreme Court with the associated time and expense this necessarily involves for both sides of the argument.

The human cost of control orders is extremely high. Subjects have reported how their lives have been ruined beyond repair, even after the control order had ceased in effect. This quote is from Cerie Bullivant whose experiences are related in Liberty’s response to the Counter Terrorism Review – From War to Law :

Friends turned against me and people were afraid…the control order grew more and more restrictive – it began with forced residence, no travelling and daily signing in at a police station and ended up with tagging, curfews, no studying and forced unemployment. It became impossible to live an ordinary life.

Finally, after two years, my life could begin again. Looking back, I see how naïve I was. There was no way my life would return to normal. I’ve had to move – I still get abused in the street, shouted and spat at. …I’ve always tried to live a good life but now I’m the lowest of the low – and I’ve never been charged, tried or convicted of any terror offences.

So, costly for the taxpayer, and for the control order subject. I believe costly too, for British society. Our reputation for being a nation in which the rule of law prevails is in tatters. The availability of house arrest is also expensive for relations between minority communities and the rest of the population. It’s costly for our sense of how society, our values, the traditional rights and freedoms which we have all taken as read, and perhaps taken for granted, for so long.

Are control orders open?

And again, that would be a no. There is no openness about the allegations forming the basis for the control order application, which are based on suspicion and intelligence, not evidence subject to examination and questioning in an open court. Hearings are held behind closed doors. The purpose of the orders is to keep apparently dangerous people off the streets without a trial in open court because of concerns that there is insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. But this argument falls apart in the face of the fact that seven of the people made the subject of control orders have disappeared. We can assume that the people who stay put once the subject of the order are not the most dangerous.

The use of intercept evidence as an alternative means of achieving the utilisation of the court process is dismissed by the security personnel. The security services prefer the UK government to continue to use control orders, thereby undermining fundamental principles of our democracy. They prefer this course to considering ways in which intercept evidence can be introduced into court proceedings without endangering our security officers, and without giving away their methods of gathering information.

The control order debate is a different sort of test than the difficult and controversial decisions being taken about tuition fees, the benefits system and the CSR. The issue provides a different test for the coalition, and for the Liberal Democrats. It’s a test of what sort of a society it is that we want (to come back to those fourteen little words) to build and safeguard. It’s clear that there are many Conservatives who oppose control orders just as vociferously as the Liberal Democrats. This debate has nothing to do with money. It requires assessing a different sort of cost. What price fairness, openness and freedom? These are guiding principles which are too precious to jeopardise.

The cost of permitting a drift towards a society which countenances house arrest and a regime which is an affront to the rule of law is too high to pay any longer. The last government had a casual disregard for civil liberties which led to horrendous abuses and policies. We must not allow the same thinking to dominate this government as it did the last.

We must scrap control orders now.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

13 Comments

  • TheContinentalOp 21st Nov '10 - 2:32pm

    Excellent article. Don’t give up this fight.

  • 100% agreed, that’s a big fat red line in the way economic policies can’t be.

  • Leviticus18_23 21st Nov '10 - 2:51pm

    I’d like to see the LibDems take a stand over Control Orders.

    However, on past performance, I suspect what we will see is the Conservatives doing what they want and Clegg telling us it’s fair, he didn’t know how bad the situation was and it’s all the fault of the previous Labour government.

    *sigh*…

  • Great article – and a worthy cause!
    This is very important: control orders really should be stopped ASAP. Security arguments simply aren’t good enough as an excuse for curtailing civil liberties in such an outreageous manner.

  • Anthony Aloysius St 21st Nov '10 - 6:56pm

    “However, on past performance, I suspect what we will see is the Conservatives doing what they want and Clegg telling us it’s fair, he didn’t know how bad the situation was and it’s all the fault of the previous Labour government.”

    And saying “we didn’t win the election” over and over again. Don’t forget that.

  • Not sure about the use of the “14 words” theme!

    We’ll get some very confused neo-nazis visiting

  • Thanks for all the comments.

    Geoff: I’m hoping the argument against will win the day, and a Conference motion won’t be necessary!

    For all those who are cynical about the strength of feeling of the Lib Dems in government about control orders, as I said in the post I disagree that this is an issue like others. Chris Huhne has come out in favour of the abolition of control orders very recently, the backbenchers led by Tom Brake have written to the leadership, and Lord Ken Macdonald has indicated he will come out against the review if it comes up with the wrong conclusions. As David Cameron apparently said, the control order issue could turn into a “f’***ing car crash” for the coalition. The press reports give an indication of just how difficult this is proving for the coalition. The security services have said this is a “purely political decision” for Cameron. So it’s down to us to keep campaigning, and for Conservatives who oppose the control order regime (and there are many) to persuade their party they are an affront to British values and must be scrapped.

    Hywel – I don’t know the 14 words reference, but maybe if confused neo-nazis visit LDV they’ll learn something!

  • Ah – I wondered if it was an innocent coincidence or deliberate irony 🙂

    “14 words” is white nationalist shorthand – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words.

    I like our 14 words a lot more, but I think it might take more than that to convert the Stormfront type neo-nazis

  • I expect nothing less than 100% of Lib Dem MPs/Ministers to come out against control orders, any that do not simply do not belong in the party in my opinion (that is especially true of the leadership)

  • Matthew – fair point. I was being quite free with the definition of free, but deliberately. For the reasons I’d described in the article about whether control orders are fair and open, I think it’s obvious that they don’t contribute to a freer society. I was trying to make the point that they are expensive socially and legally, as well as in terms of our reputation and of course they mean that our civil liberties pay a very high price.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarOnceALibDem 24th Nov - 1:37am
    5) So hacks 1, 2 and 3 would create something that was fairly easy to spot and even 4 would be easy to remedy if...
  • User AvatarOnceALibDem 24th Nov - 1:27am
    I've though (obsessed!) about this driving home tonight. It smacks of BS: 1) It is conceptually easy to trash a voting database. Very straightforward to...
  • User AvatarOnceALibDem 24th Nov - 1:06am
    @Riccardo Sallustio - do you have a case name/reference for that as it's not something I'd heard about? Where is it being brought. It's being...
  • User AvatarJeff 24th Nov - 12:28am
    steve white 24th Nov '17 - 12:15am: How does she know it was the Russians? I expect she buys Kremlin brand tinfoil.
  • User Avatarsteve white 24th Nov - 12:15am
    How does she know it was the Russians? Didn't know Russians had got into state DNC lists?
  • User AvatarJeff 24th Nov - 12:05am
    Katharine Pindar 23rd Nov '17 - 11:52pm: ...people have to face the fact that the country has a grim economic prospect for years to come...