By David Stringer
The Associated Press
LONDON — Despite continuing jitters in Europe over new terror plots, Britain’s government is rolling back unpopular security laws — widely considered the toughest among Western democracies — for the first time since 9/11.
Home Secretary Theresa May is on Wednesday to announce sweeping restrictions to powers held by police and prosecutors to combat terrorism, seeking to strike a new balance between personal freedoms and public safety.
After taking office in May, Britain’s coalition government said the previous administration had “abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms,” promising to overhaul the most draconic features of its counterterrorism armory.
May will confirm curbs on police powers to stop and search suspects and a drastic cut in the amount of time officers are permitted to detain those arrested over purported plots before they must be charged with a crime or freed.
She is also likely to restrict the use of spying techniques by local authorities — who have adopted tools intended for terrorists to snoop on minor offenders, including pet owners who let their dogs dirty sidewalks.
But the government is not expected to ditch the country’s most controversial anti-terrorism measure — a house arrest-style program known as control orders, currently used to curtail the movements of eight people.
Under the program, suspects deemed a risk to national security — but who aren’t accused of any crime, or can’t be deported over fears they could face torture in their homelands — can be held under a curfew of up to 16 hours per day.
They can be ordered to wear an electronic anklet, must attend only one approved mosque, are barred from using the Internet and subjected to strict rules on whom they can meet or speak with on the phone.
A number of prominent extremists have been detained under the system, including men convicted in Morocco and Tunisia of terrorism offenses and a suspect wanted for extradition by Italy. Others detained include associates of London’s July 2005 suicide bombers and suspects linked to a 2006 plot to down trans-Atlantic airliners.
Before the May election, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats promised to scrap the system and Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservatives called the regime “morally objectionable.”
Since winning office, Clegg has continued to attack the system as unfair. In contrast, Cameron has accepted that protecting the public isn’t so straightforward.
“Now they’ve had the daily briefings on the details of the terrorist threat, the things that sounded great on the campaign trail don’t seem so appealing,” said Robin Simcox, a researcher at the Center for Social Cohesion, a London-based think tank which studies extremism.
Last month, nine men were charged over an alleged plot to attack London landmarks including the Houses of Parliament and the U.S. Embassy. In his New Year message, Cameron said the risk of attack was “as serious today as it ever has been.”
Despite the threat, May will reduce the scope of the control order system, announcing a replacement program that is expected to scrap curfews and lift restrictions on a suspect’s freedom to meet and communicate with whom they choose. However, suspects may still be electronically tagged.
Lawyers for those who’ve lived under the control orders system say it has left some with mental health problems, chiefly because suspects are told little about the intelligence that has marked them out as a threat.
The program was introduced after Britain’s highest court ruled in 2004 that authorities could no longer detain terrorism suspects in prison custody without trial.
“A control order can lead an individual to feel incredibly frustrated, like his whole life is on hold,” said Mohammed Ayub, who represents an Iraq-Kurd imam who lived under the regime for three-and-a-half years.
Other critics point to the fact at least 7 of about 45 people detained under the system were able to disappear. One man fled through the rear door of a mosque, while another climbed to freedom through a window of a London hospital.
May’s ministry has confirmed that, under the legal changes, police will no longer be allowed to hold people arrested as suspected terrorists for up to 28 days before they must be charged with a crime or released.
In the future, British police will have only up to 14 days to detain suspected terrorists — still a far longer period than in most other nations.
Spain, where the 2004 Madrid bombings killed 191, offers law enforcement officials up to 72 hours before a terrorism suspect must be charged or freed. Portugal can hold such suspects for 48 hours, while French police are permitted six days and Italian authorities four days to lay charges in terrorism cases.
In Denmark and Norway, a court must rule every four weeks whether a person suspected of any crime can continue to be held in police custody until they are charged or released. Sweden has similar detention hearings every two weeks.
Canada and Germany also handle terror suspects in the same way as other suspects. In both countries, suspects must be put before a court within about 24 hours of their arrest, so a judge can approve their detention pending possible charges.
In the United States, ordinary criminal suspects can be held without charge for 48 hours. The Patriot Act allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize the detention of terrorism suspects for up to seven days.
Several nations have also scaled back anti-terrorism laws in recent years amid fears that security legislation has stifled civil liberties.
Last March, Germany’s highest court overturned a law that allowed authorities to retain data on telephone calls and e-mails, saying it marked a “grave intrusion” into personal privacy rights. The law had allowed data about — but not the content of — phone calls and e-mail exchanges to be retained for six months.
In 2007, Canada ditched provisions that allowed for preventive detention of up to three days and investigative hearings in which a judge could force a witness to testify about an imminent attack.
The country’s Conservative government has sought recently to bring them back. Craig Forcese, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said that even if Canada did, Britain’s anti-terrorism laws would likely still be regarded as the toughest.
“Put simply, we have nothing even close to the U.K. regime,” Forcese said.
—————
Harold Heckle, in Madrid; Malin Rising in Stockholm; Geir Moulson, in Berlin and Rob Gillies, in Toronto, contributed to this report.