Letter: How phone tap evidence could be used in terrorism trials
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I am pleased that there are indications that the Home Secretary wants to reconsider his proposals to impose control orders on terrorist suspects, without charge or trial. These proposals threaten the freedoms of us all.
One of the main concerns is that many people could find themselves falsely accused of terrorism, with no opportunity to prove their innocence. We saw in the campaign against IRA terrorism in the 1970s how many innocent people, such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, were given heavy sentences for crimes they had no part in. How much more likely is the Government to make such mistakes with these control orders, when they will not be required to present any evidence in a properly constituted court. The accused will not even be told of what they are accused - so they have no means to refute allegations. The consequences for the individuals concerned could be severe - possibly house arrest for life or restrictive orders which cause them to lose their livelihood.
The Government's grounds for imposing control orders will be "suspicion of involvement in terrorism". Suspicion, without having to submit evidence, is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who is overheard making a misinterpreted remark, anyone collecting for a small charity working abroad, anyone who travels off the beaten track, could be accused of supporting terrorism and given a lifetime's house arrest. I find this far more worrying than the terrorism it is supposed to combat.
Dr STEPHEN LEAH
York
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments