High Court rules in favour of North West 10

Article published: Friday, December 4th 2009

Two of the ‘North West 10’ have won a landmark High Court victory, overturning the government’s decision to withhold bail on secret evidence. Ten Pakistani students were arrested in April in bungled terror raids across the Northwest and two have been locked up ever since.

Up until now they have been refused the right to see any of the evidence against them. The government must now reveal the evidence they claim shows the remaining prisoners would pose a threat if released on bail.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson says he will appeal against the decision. The judges ruled that the government was wrong to claim that this kind of decision is immune from judicial review. They said – as with other cases – terror suspects must be given evidence of why they are being refused bail.

This ruling does not mean that those imprisoned will have access to all of the information held against them as with normal criminal cases. The government only has to provide enough evidence to show the prisoners would pose a threat if released.

Following their arrest in April, it emerged that Greater Manchester Police had no evidence upon which to make a charge after almost two weeks of interrogation. Most have been deported back to Pakistan but three remain in prison today. Despite a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights earlier this year that holding people on secret evidence is illegal, even after this latest development they will not be allowed to see most of the evidence against them.

Those still being held are classed as category A prisoners, which means they are locked up with murders and rapists. They are frequently strip-searched and have to endure harsh conditions.

Patrick Smith

Tweet

More: News, Policing

Comments

1. I’m disturbed that this mule journalist, who should know better, attributes to the police the power to find suspects innocent. The place where findings of innocence or guilt is made is, of course, a court of law. It is part of the odious totalitarianism with which these people have been treated that they have been cast into prison without charge and have been denied precisely the judgement of their peers by which a finding of innocence might be made.

   It is important that the policing function should be understood as separate from the legislative and juridical functions. The unity of all three under the police is what is properly called a “police state”.

   Whilst there are elements of a police state in modern Britain, it is a serious error to hand over to the police a power which even they do not yet claim to exercise and with which prevailing theory and statute do not yet endow them.

   We need to understand that we are _all_ innocent until proven guilty. Enough of this loose thinking which instinctively hands to the police in blind obedience to their power now this new authority to find the innocent innocent.

   To be clear, the sentence “After their arrest in April, Greater Manchester Police found all of the students innocent after two weeks of interrogation” should read more like “After their arrest in April, Greater Manchester Police, despite new broad anti-terror legislation and sweeping powers of arrest, search and surveillance, found no evidence upon which to formulate a charge after almost two weeks of interrogation.”

   Please issue a correction online and in the next print edition.

   Comment by Jim on December 6, 2009 at 5:37 pm

2. hmmm. I really think that’s a bit of an over reaction. Saying that the journalist is “hand(ing) over to the police a power which even they do not yet claim to exercise” is just ridiculous. It’s obviously just a simple mistake. Calm down.

   Comment by jane on December 7, 2009 at 9:49 pm

3. Yeah. I don’t think the police are going to read this piece and suddenly think “ooh maybe we can find people innocent …or even guilty.” The error’s been corrected now anyway.

   Comment by bill on December 7, 2009 at 9:52 pm

4. Thanks for amending the article and thereby acknowldgeing the mistake, however, I think it would have been better if the original piece, error and all, had been left intact and a correction placed beneath it, so that readers had a chance to reflect on the issue. It really does go to the heart of the problem. By changing it in place like this readers are denied the opportunity to see how easy it is even for someone who should know better to slip into this blindly authoritarian way of thinking.

   The Mule still needs to issue a correction in the next print edition.

   Bill, I’m not in the least afraid of the police. I’m afraid of all those around me whose first instinct is to blindly obey authority. Who cares what the police think? They have no power save what we give them. It’s what _we_ think that matters and it matters powerfully. We must really _understand_ vitally important legal principles such as the separation of powers and innocence until proven guilty. The fact the writer made the mistake he did shows that he does not.

   Jane, Thanks for telling me to calm down. Curiously, that’s exactly what PC 01199 from Greenheys said to me just last Frieday, right after PC 01288 assaulted me. I was already as calm as could be expected. I was merely explaining to PC 01288 that there was no need for him to use force. Have you considered calming down yourself?

   Let’s be clear. The _fundamental_ problem at the root of the crimes against these students is that the executive has taken on the power to legislate, judge and punish. One name for this arrangement is a police state. At its heart is the power of the police to find innocence and guilt. The freudian slip made here demonstrates just how much the ideology of authoritarianism has insinuated itself into our psyche. Perhaps it has never really departed since medieval times. We really need to start thinking deeply about this stuff, because this kind of loose thinking is how we got to where we are and may be undermining the political defence of these poor students.

   Comment by Jim on December 8, 2009 at 12:32 pm

5. Thanks Jim for pointing out the mistake, I have corrected it now. However, it was a simple mistake and oversight which we do not believe needs any further action.

   Also, the article appears exclusively on the website so we will not be issuing a correction in the print edition.

   Andy (MULE editorial collective)

   Comment by andyl on December 8, 2009 at 12:48 pm

6. Thanks Andy,

   Of course, if there was no print version, no print correction is needed. Fair enough.

   I continue to believe, however, that leaving the original intact and placing a correction below, would, in this case, have been a better, and perhaps more honest, alternative.

   Maybe the mistake was simple. Maybe it was profound. Are the two incompatible?

   Changing the original after a comment is made like this risks rendering the comment meaningless by disappearing the context in which it was made and leaving people clueless as to what the comment is about. Maybe not such a good idea in general.

   Best,
   Jim

   Comment by Jim on December 8, 2009 at 3:19 pm

7. In this case the comment was entirely correct, in that in a system with a legal separation of functions, of course police cannot find somebody ´guilty´ or ´innocent´. However in the given context of the article, it can be seen as more of a semantic err than a factual error on the facts pertaining to the High Court ruling and continued imprisonment (or detention – the reality is the same) of some of the men. It is important to remember that MULE is run entirely by volunteers, has very limited funding and relies on individuals dedicating their spare time outside of work and studying. This is not an excuse of course.
   Mistakes should not be published and we welcome comments which help us to uphold a high quality of content and journalistic standards.
   M (editorial collective)

   Comment by M on December 8, 2009 at 9:09 pm

8. Thanks M(whoever you are),
   Whether we live in a system with a legal separation of powers is just the issue. Do we?
   Of course the error was semantic. The original text had quite a different semantic content (read “meaning”) to the replacement, thankfully.
   I’m a volunteer too.
   Cheers,
   Jim

   Comment by Jim on December 9, 2009 at 2:08 am

The comments are closed.