2013-05-24T06:28:28-04:00 Corinna Ferguson http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=corinna-ferguson Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Corinna Ferguson Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2575717 2013-01-29T17:00:00-05:00 2013-03-31T05:12:01-04:00

Corinna Ferguson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/corinna-ferguson/
Today's case, in which Liberty intervened, focused on a 21-year-old man referred to as 'T'. When he was just 11, he was given two warnings by Manchester Police in relation to two stolen bikes. The information was then disclosed, many years later, on two occasions - firstly when he applied for a part-time job at his local football club, aged 17, and then again when he sought a place on a sports studies course at university.

Regrettably, with millions of CRB checks carried out every year and with highly personal and irrelevant data readily being shared, T's experience was far from unique. Such disclosure is said to be aimed at protecting children and vulnerable adults, which is of course crucial. But too often the current statutory regime has proved disproportionate, with information revealed regardless of the seriousness of an offence, its relevance to the position or how long ago it occurred.

Hopefully today's ruling will change all that. The Court of Appeal announced that the current system is incompatible with the right to a private life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. It also recognised that the disclosure of historic information can often lead to people being excluded from employment. The judges decided that both the primary legislation in this area, the Police Act 1997, and the relevant secondary legislation, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, are incompatible with human rights law. They have said their judgment won't take effect pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, so the government will have to appeal within 28 days or introduce new legislation within that time, otherwise the system will collapse altogether.

Disappointingly the government has already indicated that it will appeal; citing a desire not to compromise the protection of children and vulnerable groups. But today's judgment doesn't require any compromise of this kind. It isn't about violent criminals or sex offenders. It's not about serious crime. The problem with the current blanket system is that it releases minor, potentially misleading information which prevents people from securing jobs; ruining their lives. Ministers must recognise as much and do something about it.

It's not yet clear whether the Supreme Court will give the government permission to appeal. If it does, the process could take months and the system could remain as it stands in the meantime. But the government will have to prepare new legislation anyway - in case the Supreme Court says no. It's difficult to feel much sympathy for ministers. Not only did a government review conclude over a year ago that a filtering system should be introduced. This case started back in August 2011, so ministers have had plenty of time to prepare for the possibility they might lose.

Any new system should be much more nuanced. It should have regard to factors such as the seriousness of the offence; the person's age at the time of caution or conviction; the type of sentence; how long ago the offence was committed; whether the individual has reoffended and the nature of the job applied for. A more proportionate process is the only way of ensuring that highly sensitive and irrelevant personal data is no longer disclosed. As the law stands, some people's chances of employment and, at a time of austerity, their livelihoods, are continually being wrecked.

Now is not the time for the government to be stubborn or lazy. Now is the time for change, and for a proper balance finally to be struck between public protection and personal privacy.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1202115 2012-01-12T19:00:00-05:00 2012-03-13T05:12:01-04:00

Corinna Ferguson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/corinna-ferguson/
However, the Metropolitan Police has decided that suspicions over UK involvement in rendition to and torture inside Libya are so serious they demand an immediate criminal investigation.

There may also be further criminal investigations into other allegations that have emerged recently. And for the first time we have an unequivocal finding by law enforcement agencies that Binyam Mohamed was held in Morocco between 2002 and 2004 and that, during his time there, he did face questions supplied by the British Security Service. These developments make the need for an independent judicial inquiry into torture more vital than ever.

Liberty has long campaigned for an investigation into whether the UK government was complicit in torture. We called for a fair and impartial inquiry, presented openly and transparently, and the coalition won praise for promising just that. But the devil was in the detail, and what we actually got was the embarrassment of the Gibson Inquiry.

Toothless and secretive, its evidence protocol was deeply disappointing - revealing the final word on what material could be made public would rest not with a Judge but with the Cabinet Secretary. It made clear that torture victims would not be allowed to question those allegedly complicit in their abuse - even via legal representatives. Faced with such a whitewash we - along with other organisations involved and the victims themselves - said we won't participate in the process.

News that there will be a criminal investigation into Britain's suspected involvement with torture under the Gaddafi regime is obviously most welcome. But criminal law is not the only avenue for righting grave wrongs in our democracy and a proper judicial Inquiry is key. This was one of the worst scandals of recent memory and it deserves better than a murky internal Cabinet Office review. The government is more than capable of setting up effective and independent investigations - consider the Leveson Inquiry into press practices or the Baha Mousa Inquiry into the use of banned interrogation methods by the MoD in Iraq. Why can't ministers do the same for victims of torture?

In the Gibson Inquiry's shadow comes the government's Justice and Security Green Paper, which proposes to shut down open justice forever. Ministers want to be able to use closed proceedings in civil claims where they feel disclosure might 'harm the public interest'. So the executive would be allowed to defend torture accusations without revealing information that might be crucial to a fair hearing, let alone the public interest in media scrutiny of alleged abuses of power. The victim bringing the claim would not even be present, and might never be shown the judgment. They might lose the case, but never know why.

It's bitterly ironic that the green paper also coincides with the tenth anniversary of the first detainees arriving at Guantanamo Bay. Our government is marking a decade of one of the worst excesses of post 9/11 policy not with more public scrutiny, but less. These proposals, if previously in force, would have prevented such unacceptable practices from ever being exposed as they were through litigation and investigative journalism.

It's one of the UK's fundamental constitutional principles that no-one - including the executive - is above the law. It's no exaggeration to say this green paper would change that forever; destroying centuries of fair trial protections and recasting the entire civil justice system in favour of the government.

As the government considers its next move on the Gibson Inquiry, let's hope our concerns have finally been heeded and that this inadequate sham will be transformed into something truly worthwhile rather than the waste of time and money it has so far promised to be.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.949482 2011-09-05T19:00:00-04:00 2011-11-05T05:12:03-04:00

Corinna Ferguson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/corinna-ferguson/
In the wake of this, one thing all seem to agree on is the need for a thorough independent investigation. The Prime Minister says that the Detainee Inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torture, led by Sir Peter Gibson, is the proper mechanism for this. But the fact is that these disturbing allegations only serve to highlight the inadequacy of the Gibson process.
It might be thought that claims of systemic involvement in torture merit a full judicial inquiry - after all, if phone hacking by journalists does, then surely this does. But unfortunately the so-called Detainee Inquiry, as currently proposed, looks more like a secretive internal review.

The Evidence Protocol for the inquiry, published in July this year, makes it clear that there will be a presumption that secret documents remain so, and the crucial final word on whether material can be made public rests not with Sir Peter but with the Cabinet Secretary, the Government's chief civil servant. Further, it has been confirmed that the only involvement of the detainees themselves would be in submitting a statement of their allegations. They will not see the majority of the government's evidence and will not be allowed to put questions to those allegedly complicit in their abuse - even by way of their legal representatives. These fundamental flaws have led all non-governmental organisations working on these issues, including Liberty, and the detainees themselves, to boycott the process.
So, unless there is a wholesale rethink of the Detainee Inquiry, it cannot possibly achieve the original aims of getting to the bottom of what happened and restoring the reputation of our security services. Frankly, it is hard to see the point of wasting precious public money on it.

What is urgently needed is a credible, transparent investigation which commands public confidence and can establish either that none of the allegations are well-founded, in which case politicians and security officials can hold their heads high and move on, or make findings as to what, how and why things went so wrong, identifying lessons to be learnt and hopefully ensuring that British authorities are never involved in such shameful practices again.
These latest allegations also introduce a new imperative. A senior member of the rebel military forces which overthrew Gaddafi is demanding an apology from the British government for his mistreatment. It is not only the damaged reputation of British intelligence officials we need worry about now; it may also be the future relationship of the UK government with new, hopefully democratic, regimes in the Middle East. The Coalition Government should now make this a top priority. ]]>