Government Blundered With Rushed Surveillance Laws

When the government introduced the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act last year, it was nothing if not controversial. A lot of people were concerned about the fact it gave the government the power to collect communications data from suspects (who could and in many cases presumably would still prove to be innocent). The fact that an act allowing the government to intrude deeper into people’s private lives was rushed through parliament in just a few days – an absurdly short timescale compared to most other pieces of legislation – didn’t do much to endear it to the public or to civil rights organisations such as Liberty.

Now, one year on, a possibly unprecedented legal challenge has left the act itself and the rushed nature of its introduction looking like one big blunder on the part of the government. Not just the controversy of the act but concerns about its actual legality gave rise to a legal challenge from within the government’s own ranks, with two MPs taking the case against it to the High Court. A court challenge to government legislation from MPs is certainly very unusual, and some believe this is the first time it has happened at all.

Deputy Labour leader candidate Tom Watson and Tory David Davis challenged the act on the basis that the government had failed to comply with laws protecting the human rights of its subjects. It had the support of the human rights group Liberty, which criticised the way the act was “was privately agreed following discussions between the then three main party leaders” and then “became law within just three days.” This, Liberty said, “[denied] time for proper parliamentary scrutiny, amendment or even debate.”

The High Court has now decided that the challenge was perfectly well-founded; in its hurry, the government failed to comply with not one but two pieces of EU legislation designed to protect the rights of ordinary people. Both the Human Rights Act and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights contain provisions designed to protect the right of a government’s subjects to privacy which the UK government has infringed. The ruling (against which the government says it will appeal) has basically cancelled out the offending parts of the act – though this will not take effect until next March, giving the government time to come up with a new, better thought-out plan that will be more compliant with international law.

The timing of the ruling is also unfortunate for the government. It coincides with wider discussions about government surveillance and individual privacy as the government seeks to introduce yet more legislation designed to help it monitor people’s private communications. David Cameron is championing a ban of popular messaging services like WhatsApp, based on a reluctance to “allow a means of communication between people which… we cannot read.” This particularly well-publicised measure forms part of a wider raft of unpopular proposals dubbed “the snoopers’ charter.”

A violent criminal stays in Britain due to a legal blunder

A remarkable legal blunder by the Home Office has allowed a violent criminal to remain in Britain.

Hazhar Hassan Taha, who is a 24 year-old Iraqi man, was jailed for 17 months for violent disorder. After he was released, we won a legal challenge against deportation on human rights grounds.  Nevertheless, the Home office appealed to a senior judge, as part of a policy of determination to fight cases where there has been an apparent abuse of human rights legislation. A critical error was made by the immigration officials who failed to submit the legal paperwork and later failed to respond to requests from the court. What this error meant was that Upper Immigration Tribunal Judge Richard Chalkey dismissed the Home Office case without a hearing. Thus, now Taha has the right to freely remain in the country indefinitely.

This case shows clearly how inadequacies within the Home Office itself are spoiling the Government’s aim to deport more foreign criminals. Furthermore, Theresa May who is the Home Secretary has expressed her irritation with the failure of immigration judges to observe rules that are designed to restrict the use of the right to private life. However, the case of Taha shows how failings within the department of the Home Secretary herself contribute to the problem.

Furthermore, other parties have campaigned for human rights reform by pointing out to the fact that false human rights claims have to be scaled back because they frustrate the British deportation system.

Taha lives in Manchester. He has come to Britain in 2005 as an asylum seeker. His claim for refugee status was rejected within months but he still stayed in the United Kingdom. He was arrested in February 2008 for violent disorder.  He was involved in a mass fight which happened in Manchester where at least three other men were also involved. The police reported that weapons such as knives and hammers were used in the fight but it is uncertain whether Taha used the weapons. Taha himself was stabbed in the face and neck during the fight and after he was released from hospital, the police arrested him for his role in the violence. After Taha went on trial a year later, he escaped half way through the proceedings and in 2009, he married a British-born Muslim woman. The act of marriage to a British citizen can play a vital role in creating a defence against deportation if a criminal can show that his he has significant ties to this country and any deportation would have a disproportionate impact on his family.

Nevertheless, he was abiding unlawfully in the country and the legal failings have allowed for this to happen.