RIGHTS-BRITAIN: These Ten Get Another Kind of Justice

By Sanjay Suri Reprint | | Print |

Sanjay Suri

LONDON, Oct 31 2003 (IPS) - We may never know the real name of G, or whether he was called G because he was seen looking at goats in the south of England one day.

But goats had something to do with his incarceration in a high security prison in Britain today, along with 13 others. He has been in prison now since December 2001, and his solicitors fear he could spend his life in prison.

That life imprisonment could come without trial. G does not know what the charges against him are, and he may never know. Ditto for his lawyers.

The men have been detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA). An appeal by ten of them to have their detention reviewed judicially was turned down by the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) Wednesday.

A total of 16 men were arrested under the Act, introduced in response to the September 11 attacks. Of those, two have left Britain "voluntarily". But the Wednesday appeal was made on behalf of them too.

G who is described only as a 34-year-old Algerian male is said to have attended a meeting of two Algerian terrorist groups in Dorset in the south of England in 1999.

The police said they acted on a complaint by a local resident. The police report to the court says that the men "had appeared to be paying particular attention to the goats in the farmyard and this aroused suspicions, as the resident was aware of instances of ‘goat rustling’ for sacrificial purposes in neighbouring countries."

The judicial panel which considered this report while looking at the circumstances of their detention concluded: "We accept that there may be nothing strange in the culture of those from Algeria for the men to go away from their families on a trip such as that, but the opportunity to discuss matters of mutual interest far from prying ears is obvious."

The police case was that the men had gathered to choose a terrorist leader, but could not resist eyeing a goat for sacrifice – and that this greed led to their arrest.

Another suspect under indefinite detention is identified as D. The police described him as a "practised and accomplished liar."

In all cases the police claim evidence that the men were linked to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. The SIAC declared there was "sound material" to justify the continued detention of the men. But this material has been shared only between the police and the SIAC.

"It is amazing that if the evidence is good enough to hold them in detention for two years, these people have not been put on trial," a spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch told IPS in London. "Particularly since the level of evidence required is lower than in an ordinary criminal court."

Gareth Pierce, solicitor defending the men made a statement on behalf of three of the suspects after their appeal was turned down.

"They expect to remain locked up for the remainder of their lives," she said. "All are certain that there neither is nor has been a national emergency, let alone one contributed to by their presence in this country. Their arrest and continued detention without due process marks the entry of this country into a new Dark Age."

Amnesty International called the ruling a perversion of justice.

"The shockingly low burden of proof, which the SIAC ruled that the Secretary of State had met, violates the right to the presumption of innocence to which anyone subject to criminal proceedings is entitled," Amnesty said in a release. "Respect of the presumption of innocence is fundamental to fair criminal trials."

Some of the men were detained earlier at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Amnesty says the SIAC may have relied on statements made by the men there under torture.

"It would seriously undermine the rule of law if the SIAC had indeed relied on evidence extracted under torture," Amnesty International stated.

The men who remain in detention, all of them foreign nationals, have been considered too dangerous to deport. The British Secretary of State describes them "suspected international terrorists and national security risks."

Under the Act under which they are held, the government needs no evidence to prove that they are terrorists or a threat to security, but only "reasonable grounds to suspect" this.

The only defence the men have is through "special advocates" approved by the Home Office.