Abu Qatada release: is national security being compromised by an over-scrupulous attention to human rights? John Humphrys considers the issues
Politicians and the press have reacted almost as one to the decision of a high court judge to release on bail the radical Islamic cleric, Abu Qatada. Fury sums it up. National security, it is alleged, is being compromised by an over-scrupulous attention to human rights. But what can be done about it?
Abu Qatada, a Jordanian whose real name is Omar Othman, has been a thorn in the side of successive British governments for over a decade. Although not accused of any terrorist acts himself, he is regarded as immensely influential as a jihadist cleric who provides religious justification for the terrorist acts of others, not just in Britain but throughout Europe and beyond. He has been described by British judges as 'truly dangerous' and as having been at one time Osama bin Laden’s 'right-hand man in Europe'. Tapes of his sermons were found among the possessions of some those involved in the 9/11 attacks in America.
In 2001 he went on the run, but was captured the following year and locked up in Belmarsh high security prison in London. But the authorities decided that they did not have evidence to charge him with any crime which would bring him before the courts with the power to pass a prison sentence on him if found guilty. Prolonged detention without trial is unlawful in this country.
In 2005, he was freed from prison, but under the controversial system of control orders introduced by the last Labour government he was held in what many regarded as a form of house arrest. Control orders were later scrapped.
The obvious solution to the problem was to deport him to his native Jordan, where he had already stood trial twice. But in 2008, deportation was blocked by the court of appeal which had grave doubts about whether his human rights would be protected back in Jordan. This decision was overturned by the Law Lords the following year at which point Abu Qatada himself appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. It is largely because of the amount of time the court took to deliver its findings that he has been detained in this country for so long without trial: for six and a half years, the longest period of such detention in modern times.
The European Court finally ruled that it was satisfied that if he was returned to Jordan he would not himself run the risk of torture, but he would face a 'flagrant denial of justice' because any retrial in that country would be likely to depend on evidence obtained under torture. In the first of his original trials in Jordan, the only witness had been tortured and in the second, the main witness had been.
That left Abu Qatada stuck in a British jail. This week his lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald, QC, appealed for bail, arguing that his detention had gone on too long to be reasonable. 'There comes a time when it’s just too long, however grave the risks,' he said.
The judge, Mr Justice Mitting, agreed and pronounced that Abu Qatada should be released in the next few days, albeit under very strict bail conditions. A 22-hour curfew will be imposed upon him; he will be required to wear an electronic tag; his communications will be closely monitored and MI5 will vet all visitors, except his close family.
Politicians from across the political spectrum have deplored the decision. The Conservative MP, Dominic Raab, said: 'This result … makes a mockery of human rights law that a terrorist suspect deemed "dangerous" by our courts can’t be returned home, not for fear that he might be tortured, but because European judges don’t trust the Jordanian justice system.'
David Blunkett, a former Labour home secretary, said: 'It is an unholy mess. We are left in the absurd position of not being able to remove a man even though everyone accepts he won’t be tortured, not being able to keep him in prison because his human rights trump the protection of the British people, and a Government that has watered down control orders so that they are more lax than was previously the case.'
So what should happen now? The Government is hoping that it may be able to negotiate assurances from the Jordanian government that would satisfy the European court that any future Jordanian trial would not depend on evidence obtained under torture, thus allowing him to be deported. But if it fails to do so in the next three months, Mr Justice Nutting has said that he will consider relaxing the bail conditions he has imposed on Abu Qatada. That would be likely to mean that his curfew would be reduced to one imposed only overnight. He would, as the press has put it, be free to walk the streets during the day. Alternatively, the Government might appeal against the European court’s ruling, though few commentators offer it much hope of success.
To many people, the obvious answer is put Abu Qatada on trial in Britain. If he is as dangerous as he is claimed to be, they say, then surely there must be evidence to put before a court. Even if he himself has committed no terrorist offence, does his preaching not amount to incitement, or encouraging others to commit murder? Sceptics, however, point out that if this path were likely to lead to a conviction, it would already have been taken. Either the evidence is not adequate, or the authorities are reluctant to produce it in open court, for fear that it might compromise their own intelligence-gathering procedures.
Another option, favoured by much of the press and some politicians, would be simply to defy the European court. It could send Abu Qatada back to Jordan willy-nilly. But this could have major consequences. Some argue that such defiance of the court would be tantamount to Britain pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights, a convention it itself helped to set up after the second world war. That, in turn, would threaten Britain’s membership of the Council of Europe and even of the European Union. What’s the problem with that, some might say; but others would regard it as a very big step indeed to take simply as a result of a militant Islamic cleric creating an awkward problem.
A further possibility would be to detain him without trial in prison indefinitely on the grounds that considerations of national security should trump all other factors, including human rights. But that would be a huge step to take, undermining the principle of habeas corpus, that no one should be denied their freedom unless duly convicted of a crime in a court of law.
If none of these options seems palatable, the only thing left is to put up with his being granted his freedom, albeit under controlled conditions.
So what should the Government do?
What’s your view?
- Do you think the European court was right to claim that Abu Qatada would suffer a 'flagrant denial of justice' if he were deported to Jordan and faced a trial in which evidence obtained under torture was used against him?
- Should the British Government appeal against this decision?
- Was the British judge right to rule that Abu Qatada should not be detained in prison any longer if no criminal proceedings were to be brought against him in this country?
- Are the bail conditions temporarily imposed upon him justifiable or too tight?
- Should those conditions be relaxed if the Government fails to get assurances from the Jordanian government that would prove adequate for deporting him?
- Should the British Government be ready to defy the European court and deport him anyway?
- Should Britain break away from the European Convention on Human Rights?
- And should Britain be ready to detain Abu Qatada and others like him indefinitely in prison without trial, or should we put up with having ‘dangerous’ jihadists free to walk our streets, at least during the daytime?
Let us know what you think in the comment box below.
