Clarke criticises Lords on terror

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6270599.stm

Version 0 of 1.

Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke has condemned the "disgraceful" refusal of the Law Lords to talk to ministers about anti-terrorism laws.

The Court of Appeal ruled last August that using "control orders" to keep six terrorist suspects under a form of house arrest breached human rights.

Without any discussion, Mr Clarke's successor John Reid had been told to "take another stab", he told peers.

Mr Clarke said this was "incredible", considering public fears over terror.

'Tension'

A senior committee of Law Lords should be set up to discuss the general principles of new laws, providing ministers with better guidance, Mr Clarke told the Lords constitution committee.

He also said he thought the UK could leave the European Convention on Human Rights if public feeling increased that it restricted anti-terror efforts.

It had led to increased "tension" between ministers and judges, he told the Lords constitution committee.

Since the US attacks on 11 September, 2001, and the London bombings on 7 July, 2005, people had been "very exercised about whether or not we are preventing these crimes effectively", Mr Clarke added.

Ministers have criticised several judgements on terror suspects.

'Flailing around'

Mr Clarke said one ruling by the Court of Appeal blocking the deportation of Afghans who took over a passenger plane had amounted to a "tacit invitation to terrorist hijackers".

It showed the judiciary "bears not the slightest responsibility for protecting the public, and sometimes seems utterly unaware of the implications of their decisions for our security".

Mr Clarke said the public did not usually understand what disputes between judges and ministers were about.

He said: "What I strongly dislike is flailing around in a cloud of views of senior lawyers with different opinions and the difficulty of getting to a firmness of accuracy in that situation."

Mr Clarke added that "the politicians, the ministers, the judges and the parliamentarians generally do understand the broad relations" between the judiciary and the government.

But, he said: "I think citizens don't and find it very, very confusing when there are rows taking place"

Mr Clarke added: "The idea that judges are so eminent and right... that they are beyond criticism is one I couldn't go along with."

"I regard it as disgraceful that no Law Lord is prepared to discuss in any forum with the home secretary of the day the issues of principle involved in these matters," he said.

He added: "I strongly believe that the attitude of the Law Lords has to change.

Conservative leader David Cameron has pledged to reform, replace or scrap the Human Rights Act if he is elected.

Last August, the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision that control orders made against six suspects were too severe and should be quashed.

The orders, which kept the men inside for 18 hours a day, breached Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws indefinite detention without trial, it was ruled.