APPENDIX 16
Memorandum submitted by the Muslim Safety
Forum
THE MUSLIM SAFETY FORUM (MSF'S) RESPONSE
TO THE "HOME OFFICE CONSULTATION ON POSSIBLE MEASURES FOR
INCLUSION IN A FUTURE COUNTER TERRORISM BILL—25 JULY 2007"
PAPER
1. BRIEF INTRODUCTION
TO THE
MSF
1.1 The Muslim Safety Forum (MSF) is the
key advisory body for the Metropolitan Police Service and Association
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on issues concerning British Muslims.
1.2 The overriding objective of the MSF
is to identify the safety and security needs for all our communities
and with a particular focus on issues that affect the Muslim community.
The MSF has representation from a range of diverse stakeholders
including different schools of thoughts, ethnicity, gender, and
age groups from across the Muslim communities in the UK.
1.3 The MSF would like to ensure that channels
exist for a positive engagement with the Police Service so that
a fairer and effective policing frame-work can be developed that
meets the needs of all the citizens in the UK. Also to co-operate
with other bodies such as the MET, MPA, Home Office, GLA, IPCC,
CPS, ACPO and APA; that have a direct influence on policing policies
in the UK.
2. CURRENT WORK
PROGRAMME OF
THE MSF WITHIN
COUNTER TERRORISM
REMIT
2.1 Currently the MSF is engaged with the
Police Service to achieving the following key aims that it believes
will help both to tackle the crime of terrorism and build better
relations between the Police and the Muslim community.
2.2 The police to work systematically to
redress the sense of injustice felt by those who have been traumatised
by anti-terror raids and are released without charge. Maximum
effort should be exerted to explain to those involved and their
family what had happened and why.
2.3 The need for the police to be more informative
in their communications with the community and its partners and
proactively seek to dispel misinformation and misreporting by
anyone regarding the matter.
2.4 Police training which should look at
more direct input for counter-terrorists/specialist officers and
the general police force from the Muslim Community and its key
partners. This training needs to be available at recruitment stage
as well as during their time in service. That is front line police
officers, managers and senior strategic policing decision makers
should have appropriate relevant education about the Muslim communities,
their faith and the issues affecting them.
2.5 The Police to have Muslim police officers
at the heart of Counter terrorism work, including operational,
tactical planning and investigations.
3. CONSULTATION
BACKGROUND
3.1 The MSF would like to register its gratitude
to the Home Office for facilitating two meetings to discuss 25
July 2007 CT Bill proposal, the second of which Policing Minister
Tony McNulty was present.
3.2 The Muslim Safety Forum (MSF) is the
key advisory body for the Metropolitan Police Service and Association
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on issues concerning British Muslims.
We have been advising the police on matters on safety and security
for over five years, and more specifically on matters relating
to counter terrorism.
3.3 We would like to reiterate our point
that an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) be carried out prior
to any further request is made for new or extension of existing
counter Terrorism powers. Further, this assessment is shared specifically
with the MSF and the wider communities. The MSF has offered at
various times to work with the Home Office to carry out such an
assessment that would be seen to be done in partnership with the
community. We would recall our meeting with William Nye where
a joint proposal to carry out such an assessment was submitted.
We note from the minutes of the meeting on 10 September 2007 that
the Home Office has agreed to carry out an EIA and the Police
Minister Tony McNulty is in agreement with this.
3.4 Further the MSF would like to raise
the issue of redressing the sense of injustice felt by those innocent
people that are caught up due to the ambiguity and in some occasions
imbalanced policing methods employed in implementing the raft
of counter terrorism legislation. We strongly suggest that there
be an exploration of compensation models, which do not necessarily
have to be simply financial, that will help those innocent members
of the public to retain dignity and have the opportunity afforded
to them to return to "life as normal".
3.5 The MSF has chosen only to respond to
proposals it feels are counter productive to the efforts being
undertaken on a more joined up approach which includes the Prevent
strand of CONTEST. Other proposals at this stage are deemed to
be either acceptable or not likely to cause great impact upon
police community relations.
3.6 We hope that the Home Office will recognise
the willingness of communities, specifically the MSF, to work
with the authorities to secure our way of life and to ensure that
we do not slowly chip away at the very foundations of our society,
that of Liberty, Equality and Due Process.
4. PRE-CHARGE
DETENTION
4.1 The current limit of 28 days pre charge
detention was introduced as a compromise from the initial 90 days
that was lobbied for. This was because parliament was not convinced
that the evidence and arguments for 90 days were neither justified
nor conclusive. From our extensive work with the Police service,
specifically with the counter terrorism command, which has national
lead for all terrorism matters we feel the arguments or evidence
to increase from the current limit are still unjustified and inconclusive.
4.2 The MSF fully appreciates the difficult
task the police have and has extensive awareness of what is involved.
The need for an extension comes about from the experiences of
operation "Overt" and the possibility of there being
a number of similar operations at any one time. It is worth noting
that there is not one single case where the police have felt that
they need to go beyond the current 28-day limit, something acknowledged
by both the Home Office and the Police.
4.3 However, we feel that this scenario
is best served by looking at the wider issues of resources, coordination
and improved relations with foreign security services and the
communities. Indeed this is what we came to in our understanding
through various meetings with police specialists in this area.
4.4 We believe that new and innovative methods
of data interrogation and analysis needs to be considered to automate
many tasks that computer forensic officers are carrying out routinely.
Furthermore, there needs to be an investment made to increase
the number of computer forensic officers. This is borne out from
our discussions with the police and experiences of officers working
in similar fields. To this end the MSF welcomes the increase in
the annual spending on Counter terrorism.
4.5 From our discussions with the police
we also feel that there are various agencies that need to work
more closely with each other. We are aware that often the police
rely on information that is sourced outside the UK and in particular
with foreign security services. Our understanding is that this
is currently not as smooth as it should be and the government
needs to look at improving this process from a relational point
of view to methods used to share information and data.
4.6 The MSF welcomes the change in language
by both our new Prime Minister and Home Secretary where crime
and criminality are the core focus instead of rhetorical language
of "war on terror". To maintain this development we
feel it is essential, as do our colleagues in the police force,
to do all that is possible to keep the communities engaged and
proactive in helping to deal with crime and criminality. An increase
from the current limit to pre-charge detention will work completely
against this ethos and will prove to be counter productive.
4.7 We are already aware of cases where suspects
have been kept for over 10 days and then released without charge
who have then gone on to make comments in the media which spoke
negatively of the police and conveyed their anguish and injustice
that they felt through the ordeal only went to put further strain
on police community relations. No doubt this reflects negatively
on the police service and strengthens community fears and erodes
confidence.
4.8 From our experiences over the last few
years it is clearly evident that the Muslim community has felt
a great sense of injustice in how counter terror operations are
carried out. This feeling is augmented by sensational media headline
grabbing news stories. By contrast whilst the great majority of
people arrested who are later released with out charge do not
have an opportunity to publicly clear the stigma that has been
laid at their door. This redress of injustice is paramount to
build the confidence of the communities to help proactively tackle
the crime of terrorism. To this effect we suggest that a compensation
model be explored where those held and released without charge
have a mechanism for redress.
5. FORFEITURE
OF TERRORIST
ASSETS
5.1 We agree that anyone convicted of financing
terrorist offences to forfeit their asset, as the logic holds
the acquisition of such assets maybe have been for terrorism purposes.
However the same does not hold true for someone who has been convicted
of other terrorism related offences. In these cases, assets belonging
to the convicted person may have been for genuine needs and not
for the purpose of terrorism. We see this new proposal as one
that will punish innocent members of the family for a crime that
in all probability was not in their knowledge, nor one that they
shared in any way.
5.2 Also we are not convinced by the argument
put forward and we have not heard from the Police of any cases
where they felt this type of forfeiture was necessary and needed.
The proposal in our view is counter productive and will only go
to further alienate the innocent family members caught up in the
incident.
6. CONTROL ORDERS
6.1 The MSF questions the wisdom and effectiveness
of the use of Control Orders. In essence this has created a parallel
legal system which has led the Home Office to continually ask
for amendments to the legislations to allow for practical policing,
such as powers of entry, search and seizure. Note; these powers
already exists in the normal legal framework. Therefore the creation
of additional powers is strategically an inefficient use of our
scarce resources especially when exiting frameworks can adequately
deal with the issues.
6.2 The Home Office is waiting for the forthcoming
Judgement by the House of Lords on use of Control Orders. Consequently,
it would be prudent at this stage to seriously reconsider the
use of these powers and return to established criminal legal framework,
which allows for transparency and due process of law without the
need to set up a quasi-judicial process. We would quote the Policing
minister Tony McNulty who said, rightly, "The rules of the
game have not changed."[272]
Meaning that we should not go beyond the established legal framework
to tackle the issue of terrorism, rather take on the learning
we have achieved from the Irish troubles together with the ruling
offered by the House of Lords on the previous powers to detain
foreign nationals without charge. We urge the Home Office to afford
every opportunity to win hearts and minds and resist powers that
only take away our way of life, which is the very aim of terrorist
and terrorism.
7. TERRORIST
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
7.1 This measure seeks to impose a monitoring
system whereby a burden is imposed on those convicted of terrorist
related offences to inform the police of movement, residence and
travel. Our initial concern is that continuing measures that are
perceived to continually treat those who have spent their sentence
as suspect may have the effect of hindering integration and de
radicalisation.
7.2 We have witnessed many convictions and
acquittals of individuals who have genuinely regretted their involvement
with terrorist related environments. It is important that such
individuals are enabled to leave behind their past mistakes and
move forward.
7.3 Furthermore, the MSF would point to
the raft of monitoring directives that already exist in the current
legislation.
8. TERRORIST
TRAVEL OVERSEAS
8.1 This provision further empowers stop
and searches at ports. It is all too often that reports of Muslims
seeking to travel abroad are held, questioned and released with
the effect of the traveller missing his or her flight or holiday
altogether. Given the high profile result of such operations and
often quite damning and stigmatising effects we feel such practices
could potentially have a far more disproportionate effect on the
perceptions of community policing.
8.2 The argument outlined above regarding
Terrorist notification holds true for this, we must allow for
people who have spent their sentence to have an opportunity to
leave the past behind and move on, otherwise we risk pushing individuals
towards the periphery of society.
8.3 The MSF feel that if such a measure
is deemed necessary, then it is important to recognise that such
measures will disrupt personal and sometimes-expensive travel
plans. Therefore it would be fair and proper to ensure that there
is some form of compensation to return the innocent "suspect"
back to the position he/she would be in if they were not subject
to such powers. This is an excellent opportunity to develop a
compensation model, which would absolve individual and community
perceptions of disproportionality.
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 The MSF strongly opposes any increase
to the current 28-day limit on pre charge detention. It finds
no evidence for this increase from either the Police or the Home
Office, and fundamentally believes the scenario of multiple "Operation
Overt" type incidents is not one that can be used as a basis
of seeking this increase. The MSF believes that further investment
in resources, both specialists as well as general, increased co-operation
and co-ordination together with improved relations both with foreign
security services as well as with communities within the UK and
efficient working processes can alleviate much of the concern.
This approach will ensure that the long term values of our society
and the wider human rights agenda is not compromised by myopic
reactions.
9.2 The MSF does not support the proposal
to include Forfeiture of assets of those convicted of terrorist
related offences that are not "financial terrorism convictions".
It deems this to be unwarranted and not supported by any evidence,
and believes it will disproportionately punish innocent family
members.
9.3 The MSF ardently requests the Home Office
to review the use of Control Orders. Evidence shows it is proving
to be a difficult, costly piece of legislation to implement and
that it is counter intuitive to wining hearts and minds; the core
of the Prevent Strategy of CONTEST.
9.4 MSF opposes the proposal for both Terrorist
Notification and the provision for notification when travelling
abroad. It finds both of these proposals unnecessary and one that
will make it difficult for those that have spent their custodial
sentences to move on and integrate back in to society. All of
which is against the ethos of Prevent Strategy.
9.5 The MSF would like to thank the Home
Secretary and Police Minister (including the current Prime Minister)
for the change in language and genuinely giving the Prevent strand
an opportunity to succeed. It asks that this opportunity be further
enhanced by avoiding further legislation that will only give a
contradictory message to that sought by the change in language.
9.6 The MSF looks forward to receiving,
as promised by the Home Office, the Equality Impact Assessment
on how the cohort of anti-terror legislations has impacted on
community cohesion and race relation amongst citizens of the UK.
It is only through a sincere self audit and listening to the stakeholders
in our society that we can become a more tolerant, more dignified
and a more democratic nation.
9.7 The MSF wishes to thank the Home Office
for undertaking this important consultation. We also look forward
to working together in taking our nation forward to be an example
for the rest of the world in balancing our security needs within
the ethos of human rights and democratic principles.
26 October 2007
272 Labour Party Conference 2007 Back
| 
