Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Counter Terrorism Bill continues its passage through Parliament today, with its second reading in the House of Lords.
Most of the controversy around the bill has focused on 42-day detention, but there are a number of other provisions that deserve serious scrutiny. Inquest has produced a briefing that focuses on part 6 of the bill, which it calls "a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the coronial system in England and Wales."
The proposals could result in inquests into highly contentious deaths in custody taking place without juries and partly in private with appointed coroners and appointed counsel. This would exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process in breach of article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The immediate justification for changing the law is the case of Azelle Rodney, who was shot dead by police in London on 30 April 2005.
In July 2006 the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced that there was insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution. After the CPS decision, the family was told by the coroner that the full inquest could not be held because large portions of the police officers' statements had been crossed out under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, which covers information obtained from covert surveillance devices such as telephone taps or bugs. Lawyers acting for the family of Azelle Rodney threatened to take the government to court to show that RIPA was in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. His family have already been told that their case will be subject to the new measures despite the Bill still progressing through parliament.
The new proposals could also be extended to a much wider range of cases, according to Andrew Dismore MP, the chair of Parliament's Joint Human Rights Committee.
We are seriously alarmed at the prospect that under these provisions inquests into deaths occurring in circumstances like that of Jean Charles de Menezes, or British servicemen killed by US forces in Iraq, could be held by a coroner appointed by the Secretary of State sitting without a jury. Inquests must be, and be seen to be, totally independent, and in public to secure accountability, with involvement of the next of kin to protect their legitimate interests. When someone dies in distressing, high profile circumstances their family need to see and feel that justice is being done, and where state authorities are involved there is a national interest in accountability as well.
What's particularly worrying is the implications of combining these proposals with those on 42 days. The state will be able to hold people for six weeks without charge, and if they die during that time, they will be able to deny their family a public hearing before a jury. Surely a Government that is attempting to justify a longer detention period should be strengthening such safeguards, not weakening them.
