Legal Action

Four essential safeguards MPs must back

Posted on March 4, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, Legal Action, Ministry of Justice | Leave a comment

5946829399_e633991652_o Time is running out to ensure that the British legal system is not fundamentally altered in favour of the State’s desire to keep secret what it chooses. Today several amendments to the Justice and Security Bill are before the House and we urge MPs to back them, if they are unwilling to vote against Part 2 of the Bill.

The House of Lords amendments to safeguard the use of Closed Material Procedures were a reasonable and practical way of ensuring that legislation did not put undue power in the hands of the Executive to keep inconvenient and embarrassing matters secret. Anthony Peto QC, co-Head of Blackstone Chambers, has perfectly highlighted how the Government removed “four sensible and clear safeguards introduced, with overwhelming majorities, by the Lords” – they were:

That Judges should refuse CMP’s where the public interest in the fair and public administration of justice outweighed the likely damage to national security.
A provision that CMPs should be a measure of last resort.
That the judge must first consider PII before ordering a CMP.
That the citizen must have the same right to apply for a CMP as the State.

Write to your MP about the Justice and Security Bill today

Posted on March 1, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, International, Legal Action, Ministry of Justice | 5 Comments

Time is running out to ensure that the British legal system is not fundamentally altered in favour of the State’s desire to keep secret what it chooses.

The House of Lords attempted to introduce safeguards to the Justice and Security Bill – but they were overturned at Committee stage in the Commons.

The latest assessment from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, publishing its second legislative scrutiny report, warned that there were still a number of significant issues that had not been addressed by the Government.

Andrew Tryie MP and Anthony Peto, QC wrote a damning paper for the Centre for Policy Studies ‘Neither Just nor Secure’ while former Labour Minister Chris Mullin joined critics arguing the Bill “will be deeply damaging to the integrity of our legal system in the eyes of the world.”

A letter signed by 702 legal experts called the Bill ‘dangerous and unnecessary’ while the Special Advocates’ latest analysis, argues there is “no compelling justification for the proposals in Part 2 of the Bill has been made out, notwithstanding the Government’s assertions to the contrary“.

You can download a letter to send to your MP now – time is running out.

Southampton Council in the dock

Posted on February 20, 2013 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Audio recording, CCTV, Councils, Information Commissioner, Legal Action | 1 Comment

Southampton Council’s attempt to justify it’s policy of requiring taxis to record audio and video of every journey took another blow yesterday when the ‘First Tier Tribunal’ ruled against it.

The case stems from a complaint made by Big Brother Watch and others to the ICO, and led to Oxford council abandoning it’s policy and Southampton being given an ‘enforcement notice’ – essentially a prosecution for breaching the Data Protection Act.

As reported by the barrister’s chambers 11KBW, who acted for the Information Commissioner’s Office in the case, “what the Council disputed was (1) the conclusion that the policy involved the processing of “sensitive personal data” as well as personal data; and (2) the ICO’s finding that the recording and retention of audio data was a disproportionate interference with passengers’ privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention.”

On both points, the tribunal ruled against the council, saying the policy was disproportionate and accepting the risk of “function creep”.

With lawyers highlighting that this case sets an important precedent for surveillance and data protection law, we hope that in future councils will not be so quick to implement policies that so blatantly trample on the privacy of people without any kind of justification.

The only decision Southampton Council can now make is to abandon this ludicrous policy and we will be writing to them to demand they do so immediately.

“Legal Minds Agree” that CRB is a breach of human rights

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Emma Carr Posted in CRB check, Human Rights Act, Legal Action, Privacy | 14 Comments

In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the law which requires people to disclose all previous convictions to certain employers is a breach of human rights.

In this case, a 21 year old man wanted cautions to be removed from his criminal record. His crime, being accused of stealing two bicycles at aged 11. Information about the cautions had been flagged up when applying for a part-time job at a local football club at the age of 17 and later when he applied for a university course in sports studies.

An urgent reform of the Criminal Records Bureau is required. This case highlights how the Coalition’s reforms have not gone far enough and the CRB system continues to lead to absurd results in too many cases, including thousands of people being wrongly branded criminals.

Prime Minister misses the point on judicial reviews

Posted on November 19, 2012 by Emma Carr Posted in Home, Judicial review, Legal Action | 1 Comment

David Cameron has announced plans to build a “leaner, faster” government, by means of a shakeup of the judicial review process. Rather than focusing on creating a system that would hold public decisions to account, the Prime Minister has promised to crack down on “time wasting” caused by the “massive growth industry” in legal challenges to government policy.

The stats speak from themselves: the number of judicial review applications used to challenge a decision by a public body has risen from 160 in 1975 to 11,200 in 2011. However, last year applications were five times more likely to be refused than granted.

The Prime Minister placed reforms to the judicial process at the center of his plans to ensure Britain can compete globally. The proposals include cutting the three month time limit on applying for a review and charging more “so people think twice about time-wasting”, however how much “more” is currently unclear. Currently, a fee of £60 is payable when permission for the application is lodged and a further £215 is payable if permission is granted. Legal costs can then run up to tens of thousands of pounds.

A recent example of a judicial review is the case of the West Coast rail franchise which saw Virgin Rail successfully overturn the Department for Transport decision to award the contract to FirstGroup. Another successful example is the legal challenge launched by Friends of The Earth on the Government’s plans to cut solar tariff incentives.

The Government appear to be missing the point; the process should be about speed and efficiency not making it harder to make a claim. Perhaps, rather than focusing on people and organisations causing unnecessary delays, the Government should be introducing what is currently lacking; proper checks to hold public decisions to account.

Home Office fails to protect British citizen, again

Posted on July 3, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, Extradition, International, Legal Action, United States | 3 Comments

Despite more than 210,000 people signing Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales’ petition,the Home Office have said that they do not intend to block the extradition of Richard O’Dwyer.

The petition sums up the absurdity of the situation – America is trying to prosecute a UK citizen for an alleged crime which took place on UK soil.

And the Home Office think that’s just fine.

In yet another stark illustration of how one-sided the UK-US extradition relationship has become – not to mention the subservience of officials who theoretically are supposed to protect the interests of British citizens – a 24 year old faces up to a decade in a US prison for copyright offences.

He has never been arrested or charged with an offence under UK law, his site was not hosted in the US and he has lived in the UK all of his life. Basic principles of justice have been abandoned.

If there was a crime it should be investigated and tried here in the UK, like any other crime.

Richard’s fate now rests on his appeal later in the year. You can sign the petition here.

Five questions for Ken Clarke

Posted on March 6, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, Legal Action, Terrorism Legislation | 3 Comments

Writing on Conservative Home today I argue against the broad-brush proposals within the Justice & Security Green Paper could stifle inquests and cover up malpractice.

“The fundamental issue is who decides what is, and is not, evidence for the court to consider. It cannot be right that a politician makes that decision. We absolutely need to protect our national security and ensure the intelligence services can do their jobs. The way to achieve that is not for government to be above the law.”

This afternoon Justice Secretary Ken Clarke will appear before the Joint Committee on Human Rights this afternoon, and Big Brother Watch has five questions for the Justice Secretary that we believe need answering before he rides roughshod over Magna Carta and 800 years of legal precedent.

Why, given it is our closest ally and source of a great deal of our intelligence material, does the Green Paper not include a direct comparison with the US system for dealing with sensitive evidence?
As they stand, the proposals would allow Ministers the power to extend secret proceedings to any civil case. Why are the proposals not limited to cases involving National Security?
Why has the burden been placed on the individual to prove that evidence should be heard in open court, rather than on the government to prove it should be heard in secret?
The British legal system relies on the use of precedents based on specific facts. How can this process function if judgements and the facts they are based upon are only available to the Government?
The common law process revolves around the finding of facts on a rational basis in an open court and which are open to challenge. How can this be preserved if key evidence is not open to challenge?

We look forward to hearing his evidence later today.

Bailiffs face stricter regulations

Posted on February 17, 2012 by Emma Carr Posted in Bailiffs, Civil Liberties, Councils, Home, Legal Action, Privacy | 1 Comment

“Too many people have experienced intrusive bailiff action … we want to restore balance to the system …. and strengthen protection for vulnerable people” Jonathan Djanogly MP

The news today that regulations for bailiffs are to be overhauled is welcomed news.

The reforms will follow ‘Who’s knocking at your door?’ a report published last year by Big Brother Watch. The report highlighted: how in just three years local councils had sent in bailiffs on more than six million occasions. In many cases it was for trivial issues like the late payment of parking fines; and that there are in excess of 500 companies engaged in recovering unpaid debts with a collective turnover of more than £3 billion per annum.

The introduction of new national standards could ban the use of force as well as setting out how and when bailiffs can enter your home. The regulations will protect vulnerable people and ensure that the work carried out by bailiffs is conducted in a professional manner.

Jonathan Djanogly MP, Justice Minister said: “We want to restore balance to the system, improve clarity for both debtors and creditors, strengthen protection for vulnerable people and ensure that individuals, business and Government are able to collect the debts they are owed – but in a way that is fair and regulated by law.”

It is clear that in the past there have been too many cases where bailiffs have been a law unto themselves; barging their way into people’s homes, intimidating vulnerable members of the public and imposing rip-off charges. Today’s announcement is a victory for civil liberties, for families and for common sense. Sending in bailiffs to recover debts should always be the absolute last resort and it is absolutely right that they should not be able to operate above the law.

Today the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation on the way in which bailiffs should be regulated. Big Brother Watch will be submitting proposals on how to transform bailiff action. If you have any views that you would like us to submit within our report please email [email protected].

Police and CPS admit failing to protect gang witness identity

Posted on February 15, 2012 by Emma Carr Posted in Civil Liberties, Data Protection, Information Commissioner, Legal Action, Police | 3 Comments

Today the impact of poor data protection was made hauntingly clear. A series of fundamental errors by the Met Police and the Crown Prosecution Service led to a child witness having their details divulged to the very gang members that he were speaking out against. The Met Police – who had promised the child that his anonymity would be protected – and the Crown Prosecution Service have been forced to pay a family more than £600,000 in compensation after the 16 year old and his family were subject to a campaign of intimidation and harrasment.

As a consequence of the incident, the entire family had to be relocated under the witness protection scheme after threats were directed at them. In a statement the boy, his mother, and her partner said that they had been “left with no option but to leave their homes, careers, families and friends without even being able to say goodbye”.

BBC Radio 4’s Today programme heard from the family’s solicitor: “The boy witnessed a violent gang attack and he agreed to provide a statement to the police on the express promise that his identity would not be revealed to the suspects. Through a series of individual and systematic failings, his name and address were revealed to the criminal gang and the family began to experience a campaign of harassment and intimidation, and when they brought their concerns to the attention of the Metropolitan Police it was denied that their identity had been revealed.”

This case highlights the very real and potentially dangerous risks that can arise if personal information is not protected properly. Whether it is people coming forward to help the police or discussing medical issues with their doctor, if the public cannot trust the authorities to keep information private there is a real risk they will not want to say anything in future.

This failing by the Met Police follows an admission from Scotland Yard that the police had inadvertently shared the email addresses or more than 1,000 victims of crime with other victims. Although no other contact details were shared the police were forced to contact everyone affected to apologise.

Drink driving, national security and secret justice

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Civil Liberties, Human Rights Act, Legal Action, Terrorism Legislation | 1 Comment

Last week we warned of the dangerous implications of the Justice and Security Green paper and today a case has emerged that not only highlights the existing dangers of secret justice, but also the potential for abuse of the sweeping powers proposed by Ken Clarke.

In today’s Sun and Hereford Times, a story has emerged about an alleged SAS employee being convicted of drink driving. Despite causing £40,000 of damage and being more than twice the drink drive limit, the man – Mr G – was only charged with drink driving and so his case was heard at a magistrates court. He was fined£520, banned from driving for 12 months and has been ordered to pay the family involved £400 in compensation, £85 court costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

The Government sought – and won – an order preventing the disclosure of the man’s identity. In the past, these orders have been overturned, most recently in the case of convicted child abuser Ian Tuckley. The cost of taking on the Government in court is a huge burden for a local newspaper to take on, and so it is not surprising when the orders sometimes go unchallenged.

Importantly, because the man was not charged with a more serious offence, for example dangerous driving or criminal damage, which given the scale of the damage caused would not have been unreasonable, his case did not go before a Crown court. This meant the arguments about protecting the man’s identity were not heard by a senior judge, but a magistrate.

The Magistrate did rule however that the man’s human rights meant his identity should not be disclosed,

Whether the party involved is a local newspaper or a family who have been the victim of wrongdoing, open justice is a fundamental part of a democratic society.

There is clearly a need to protect those working in sensitive roles, but given the serious implications for justice these kind of orders should be used sparingly, not as a routine procedure. It is no secret the SAS are based in Hereford and those working there should not be held as above the law.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Media Enquiries

07505 448925(24hr)