5. Submission from The British Psychological
Society
The British Psychological Society welcomes the opportunity
to contribute to the annual review process of alternatives to
Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), which
makes provision for detention without trial of suspected international
terrorists.
The British Psychological Society agrees with Lord
Chief Justice Woolf's recent statement[174]
that—
"… the need for society to protect itself
against acts of terrorism today is self evident [but] it remains
of the greatest importance that, in a society which upholds the
rule of law, if a person is detained … that an individual
should have access to an independent tribunal or court which can
adjudicate upon the question of whether a detention is lawful
or not".
The British Psychological Society believes that this
question of lawfulness includes the extent to which such detention
without trial is compatible with the basic principles of Human
Rights, endorsed by the UK both in the signing of the European
Convention on Human Rights and through the provision of specific
UK legislation under the Human Rights Act (1998). We also note
the conclusions of the Privy Council review of the Anti-Terrorism,
Crime and Security Act (2001),[175]
which strongly recommended that the powers which allow foreign
nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely should be replaced
as a matter of urgency, and in a manner that does not require
a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights.
In response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report on the Case for a Human Rights Commission, the British
Psychological Society stated that we believe that a commitment
to the promotion and protection of Human Rights should be a priority
for government. Psychological science offers a valid basis for
the consideration of Human Rights.[176]
As psychologists, we are also closely involved in the care of
people whose human rights have been infringed. We are very aware
of the very grave psychological consequences of such infringements.
Psychologists work within various statutory services (e.g. NHS,
Social Services) and in the voluntary sector (e.g. Medical Foundation
for the care of victims of torture and Amnesty International)
providing services to victims of human rights abuses.
In our opinion there are profoundly important arguments
for an urgent review of the powers in the Terrorism Act, 2000,
and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. We intend
to comment on Police powers separately. This comment refers specifically
to the provision for detention without trial of persons suspected
to be involved in international terrorism. One of the effects
of this provision is that many people are detained for indefinite
periods. This can have a number of very serious psychological
consequences.
1. Psychological damage
The Joint Committee will be well aware of recent
legal action concerning the mental health of detainees. The British
Psychological Society is extremely concerned that the circumstances
and nature of the detention of terrorist suspects may be extremely
harmful to their mental health.
In the UK, applied psychologists are closely involved
in offering psychological therapies for people who have been damaged
by torture and other abuses of human rights. The British Psychological
Society therefore represents practicing clinical psychologists
professionally involved in assessing and caring for people who
either are, or may become, psychologically damaged by the nature
and circumstances of detention under the Anti-terrorism, Crime
and Security Act (2001).
Four main aspects of this detention particularly
concern psychologists: the indefinite term of imprisonment, imprisonment
without proper charge or trial, and the nature of any interrogation
or treatment experienced during detention and its impact on detainees'
health, and the impact of the above on particularly vulnerable
groups, such as the young, those who have previously experienced
torture and detention in their country of origins, those with
existing mental health problems and those with physical or learning
disabilities.
The British Psychological Society has received evidence
given in confidence by its members of the serious harm done to
the mental well-being of detainees currently held in the UK under
the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001). We also note
the well-publicised conclusions of recent court cases in this
regard, about which no doubt the Joint Committee will be well
informed.
Indefinite detention without charge and with neither
the detainee nor their legal team being informed of the evidence
against them has been described as "the toxic element"
causing serious mental health problems. Such psychological damage
consequent upon indeterminate detention can also be seen in the
experience of patients in special hospitals or secure mental health
services. Members of the British Psychological Society have a
range of experience in dealing with patients in the secure mental
health services in circumstances of indefinite detention. It is
worth noting two crucial differences between these two cases.
First, patients in such secure services have either committed
an actual offence (as opposed to simply being suspected of having
committed an offence) or otherwise have been detained as a result
of a recognised mental health problem. Secondly, such patients
have access to regular tribunals in which they have an opportunity
for a public and judicial review of their cases.
It is the understanding of the British Psychological
Society that many people currently detained under the Anti-terrorism,
Crime and Security Act (2001) are rarely, in practice, subjected
to interrogation or questioning. Indeed, this may exacerbate their
distress, in that it may indicate that they are indefinitely forgotten
and disposable. Nevertheless, any information received by the
British Psychological Society as to the nature of such any interrogation
is at best informal, and psychologically coercive questioning
techniques (including but not limited to practices such as sensory
deprivation techniques) can be extremely damaging to people's
mental health.
Recommendation 1
The British Psychological Society recommends that
the Joint Committee gives serious consideration to methods of
removing the potentially indefinite nature of detention under
the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001).
Recommendation 2
The British Psychological Society recommends that
the Joint Committee investigates the nature of any interrogation
and investigation techniques employed with persons detained under
the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) and the impact
of any such methods on detainees' health, particularly their mental
health.
Recommendation 3
The British Psychological Society recommends that
the Joint Committee gives consideration to alternative provisions
and access to professional psychological services for particularly
vulnerable groups, such as the young, those who have previously
experienced torture and detention in their country of origins,
those with existing mental health problems and those with physical
or learning disabilities.
2. Human rights, reciprocity and the powers under
the Terrorism Act, 2000, and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security
Act 2001.
Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 identifies as
'terrorist' any act or threat of action which involves serious
violence against a person or serious damage to property, endangers
a person's life (but not just the life of the person committing
the act), creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the
public or, finally, is designed to seriously interfere with or
disrupt an electronic system. Any such act must furthermore be
"designed to influence the government or to intimidate the
public or a section of the public", and to further the advancement
of a "political, religious, or ideological cause".
This definition of terrorism is extremely vague in
that it is capable of encompassing activities, which, whilst unlawful,
cannot properly be regarded as terrorism e.g. animal rights activism,
certain forms of civil disobedience or even some forms of industrial
action.
As previously expressed,[177]
a psychological perspective on human rights sees such rights as
expressions of normative social representations—representations
of our relationships and obligations to one other and how these
are used to negotiate the meeting of human needs—embedded
in institutional juridical definitions. Such a notion incorporates
a principle of reciprocity; in this case that powers of arrest
and detention are justified in response to specified threats.
There is a clear possibility that the breadth of the definition
of 'terrorist' may therefore fail the test of reciprocity, and
may therefore fail to accord with normative social rules.
Secondly, Section 40 of the Terrorism Act (2000)
defines "a terrorist" as "a person who (a) has
committed an offence under any of [specified sections] or (b)
is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation
of acts of terrorism". This has a psychological implication
in that it no longer describes the act, but describes the person.
This is a significant issue, in that the attachment of a label
to an individual has profound psychological consequences. Section
41 of the Terrorism Act (2000) then allows a police constable
to arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects
to be a terrorist. Instead of focussing on the actions of the
person—engaging in or having engaged in terrorism—the
Act focuses on the identity of the person as a terrorist.
There is a clear difference, in psychological terms,
between permitting the arrest without warrant of "a person
whom a constable reasonably suspects to have been concerned in
the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism"
and permitting the arrest of a "terrorist", even if
that person may then be described in these terms. For psychologists,
the use of a personalised definition runs the risk of exacerbating
the tendency to see terrorism as a characteristic located within
the person rather than terrorist acts as criminal and immoral
responses to a complex political and social situation. The practical
result is likely to be that perceptions will be biased to give
increased salience to factors that would normally be given less
emphasis, and which otherwise may be seen as legally irrelevant.
People are much more likely to be found guilty by association
with a personal definition of "a terrorist" as opposed
to "a terrorist act".
Recommendation 4
The British Psychological Society recommends that
the Joint Committee give consideration to possible alternatives
to the definition of terrorism in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act,
2000. Specifically, we recommend that such powers should only
apply where the criminal activity threatens the foundations of
the democratic state.
Recommendation 5
The British Psychological Society recommends that
the Joint Committee give consideration to possible alternatives
to the definition of terrorist in Section 40 of the Terrorism
Act (2000). Specifically, we recommend that the term 'terrorist'
be limited in statute to describe acts rather than people and
that accordingly other sections of the Terrorism Act (2000) and
the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) be reworded.
21 June 2004
174 Court of Appeal (2004) Case No: C2/2004/0516 In
the Supreme Court Of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
on Appeal from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Neutral
Citation No. [2004] Civ 324. Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London,
WC2A 2LL, 18th March 2004. Back
175
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review: Report
presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 122(5) of the Anti-terrorism,
Crime and Security Act 2001, HC 100, London: The Stationery Office. Back
176
Kinderman P. (2001) Mental Health and Human Rights. Science and
Public Affairs, December 2001, pp. 14-15. Back
177
British Psychological Society submission to JCHR's Consultation
A Human Rights Commission: Structure, Functions and Powers. Back
| 
