'Don't let Gary go' American Civil Liberties Union joins calls to stop unfair extradition

ACLU writes to the Foreign Secretary criticising extradition treaty between UK and US

(London – 27 August 2009) – The American Civil Liberties Union today wrote to the David Miliband expressing their concern about extradition arrangements between Britain and America. In a letter from the Executive Director Anthony Romero to the Foreign Secretary, the civil liberties group state:

“…that all people facing extradition either to or from the US should only be sent to face trial in a foreign country after there has been meaningful judicial review”

The ACLU support for Gary McKinnon comes on the same day that Liberty staged a protest outside the American Embassy and presented the new American Ambassador with a hamper welcoming him to his new role. The hamper contained a letter from Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the ACLU letter, ‘don’t let Gary go’ paper planes from the protest, a copy of the Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act as well as produce representing the countries of the United Kingdom.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“"The intervention of Liberty's sister, the American Civil Liberties Union, proves that Britain's Extradition Act is an international embarrassment. Vulnerable people like Gary McKinnon can be bundled off to other countries when they ought to be dealt with at home.

Janice Sharp's campaign for fairness for her son Gary has touched the hearts of parents everywhere. If Parliament doesn't amend Britain's rotten Extradition Act to put discretion and common sense back into the system, other vulnerable sons and daughters are bound to suffer."

Liberty, who campaign against unfair extradition in all its forms, argues that where conduct constituting a crime occurs in the UK then a British court should be allowed to refuse extradition if it’s in the interests of justice to do so. Liberty also holds that the requesting country should have to make out the case for extradition in a British court before the request is granted.

Control orders, torture techniques and the rise of the BNP - Does Britain still care about human rights?

Liberty poll shows authorities out of step with British public

(London – 15 June 2009) – In defiance of recent events, a poll released today by Liberty shows overwhelming support for human rights laws. Despite a week of the Government defending the unjust and unsafe control order system, the Metropolitan police accused of using "waterboarding" techniques with suspects and the BNP winning two European parliament seats, polling reveals that 97% think it is important that there is a law that protects rights and freedoms in the UK.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said;an rights in Britain. Despite headlines about "waterboarding" and punishment without trial, our common values still run extremely deep and the contents of the Human Rights Act are valued by the overwhelming majority of people."

The ComRes polling, commissioned by Liberty, sends a clear message to all political parties about the values the British public hold dear.

● 89% identified the right not to be tortured or degraded as either vital or important..

● 95% identified both the right to a fair trial and respect for privacy family life and the home as either vital or important.

● 76% believed that the right not to be detained without reason was either vital or important.

At last week's Liberty conference, recently retired senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham said of the

"This poll will be depressing reading for the cocky far right and others opposed to hum

Human Rights Act:

"Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any of them un-British? There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number."

Sabina Frediani, Campaigns Co-ordinator for Liberty, said;

"Britain hasn't just got talent; it's got an ocean of common sense and decency too. Public bodies have yet to step up and educate people about their rights protections but the public cherish them nonetheless. We need to be more suspicious of politicians who bash our human rights whilst demanding "due process" and "personal privacy" for themselves."

Liberty's poll coincides with the launch of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's Human Rights Inquiry report. However, both the Commission and The Government have yet to educate the public about the Human Rights Act – the Liberty poll shows that only 10% remember seeing or receiving any information explaining the legislation.

Liberty responds to Home Secretary’s departure

(London, 3 June 2009) The Home Secretary confirmed today that she would be standing down at the next cabinet re-shuffle.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said;

“Jacqui Smith was the first woman Home Secretary – an historic achievement not to be underestimated. Further, if political survival is a measure of success, nearly two years in one of the highest and hottest seats in Government is a perfectly reasonable tenancy.

Sadly, it is harder to find distinction in recent policy on home affairs.

The misguided and mercifully failed attempt to get 42-day detention without charge onto the statute book wasted over a year's worth of political energy and capital. The stubborn refusal to dump the dangerous and expensive folly of identity cards became symbolic not only of a creeping contempt for personal privacy, but of politics more generally out of touch.

To add insult to irony, a Secretary of State so careless with the presumption of innocence, found herself with many of her colleagues under the spotlight of scrutiny and suspicion.

It must be hoped that future home secretaries learn from this parable and that young women in particular are encouraged not deterred."

Jacqui Smith was appointed Home Secretary in October 2008.

Government climb-down on secret inquests

(London – 15 May 2009) Human rights group Liberty today claimed victory for victims after the Government announced that the secret inquest provisions in the Coroners and Justice bill would be dropped. The controversial proposals have generated widespread concern about the consequences for bereaved families and the negative impact on public trust and confidence.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

"We welcome this sane and humble climb-down by the Lord Chancellor. It was completely bizarre for a Government that has spent over a decade lecturing the public about victims' rights to attempt to exclude bereaved families from open justice.

Secret courts and parallel legal systems have mushroomed under New Labour but as we have learned in recent days there is no accountability without transparency."

Despite last minute amendments, the Government’s proposals would gravely limit transparency and increase executive control over the inquest process and could exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process. This could include inquests into highly contentious deaths such as deaths in custody or deaths of individuals where issues of the state’s broader conduct are raised for example an inquest into the death of a soldier killed in Iraq or the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Liberty applauds former Home Secretary’s denunciation of ID cards scheme

(London - 29 April 2009) – Liberty today welcomed former Home Secretary David Blunkett’s dismissal of the identity cards scheme. David Blunkett first put forward the idea of compulsory ID cards when he was Home Secretary in 2001 but has now withdrawn his support for the unpopular plan.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“Better late than never, the current Home Secretary should learn from her predecessor’s humility and dump the financial, race equality and privacy disaster that is this scheme.

David Blunkett was once the Godfather of ID cards – in the light of his good sense conversion, lets all hope that this grand folly finally sleeps with the fishes.”

The £5.6 billion compulsory ID card scheme has been unsuccessfully touted by the Government as a solution to identity theft, benefit fraud, crime, and terrorism.

Liberty welcomes Government climb-down on centralised communications database

(London, 27 April 2009) – In a consultation published today, the Government accepted the massive privacy implications of a centralised database holding a record of every email, phone call and text message and confirmed that this plan has been abandoned.

While Liberty understands the importance of this data in the prevention and detection of serious crime and terrorism, it has voiced concerns about the dangers of centralising this data since the proposals were announced by the Home Office in October 2008.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“We applaud the Home Office climb-down on the super Big Brother database and thank the broad coalition of sensible voices who brought it about. It is a clear signal that the public interest in personal privacy can no longer be ignored. However, if companies are to be required to hold even more information than they do at present, concerns about access and use become even more important.”

“Let us look forward to this U-turn on communications data being followed by limiting DNA retention, dumping ID cards and a less callous approach to privacy protection more generally.”

Communications service providers (CSPs) already hold large amounts of communications data and an EU directive that came into force earlier this month now requires that data is retained for 12 months. The Government is now proposing that data generated by communications services based overseas by crossing networks in the UK be collected and retained by CSPs.

'What about the victims?' - Inquest and Liberty hold parliamentary meeting on Government plans for secret inquests

Inquest and Liberty held a parliamentary meeting today on the secret inquest provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill. Chaired by Frank Dobson MP, parliamentarians were addressed by Susan Alexander, bereaved mother of Azelle Rodney who was shot dead by the Metropolitan Police in 2005, Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest and Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty.

Politicians from across the political spectrum heard that despite last minute amendments, the Government’s proposals would gravely limit transparency and increase executive control over the inquest process and could exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process. This could include inquests into highly contentious deaths such as deaths in custody or deaths of individuals where issues of the state’s broader conduct are raised for example an inquest into the death of a soldier killed in Iraq or the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Susan Alexander said:

"The secret inquest provisions in the Bill are not significantly different from the clauses that the Government withdrew last year from the Counter-Terrorism Bill, at least from my point of view. They could still prevent a jury and me from seeing key evidence and having it properly tested in Court.

The inquest into Azelle’s death will not undermine the work of the police in protecting the public from serious crime, but the public interest will be badly damaged if the truth of what happened is obscured and all the lessons of this case cannot be learned.”

Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest said:

"INQUEST remains fundamentally opposed to these proposals. They amount to a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the coronial system in England and Wales; are fundamentally flawed; unsupported by evidence; disconnected from legal principles and have come about without any consultation with stakeholders. The proposals will completely undermine the stated aim of government to put bereaved families at the centre of the reformed inquest system and will damage public confidence in the Coroner Service as a whole."

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“What happened to all that rhetoric about rebalancing justice in favour of victims? This flawed policy forgets that the only point of an inquest is providing answers for bereaved families and the wider public. It is perfectly possible to protect sensitive material within an open jury system. Everything else is just politics.”