Lib Dems push to scrap curfews for terror suspects
By Alex Stevenson Follow @alex__stevenson
The 'control order lite' regime could be watered down further following pressure from the Liberal Democrats, politics.co.uk has learned.
Civil liberties concerns have prompted the coalition's junior party to call for a curfew requirement to be replaced by a more relaxed residency requirement.
The replacement to control orders announced earlier this year, terrorist prevention and investigation measures (TPims), does not contain the requirement for suspects to be relocated.
But at present the bill pushing through the transition to the new regime proposes forcing terror suspects to remain at home for a certain period overnight.
"Even a shorter curfew is quite draconian," Lib Dem backbench policy committee co-chair Tom Brake told politics.co.uk.
"Because the residency requirement would be more flexible, the authorities would have additional powers to monitor suspects.
"It would provide people with a greater degree of flexibility and would be less draconian."
Under the control order regime suspects were required to be at home for up to 16 hours. A curfew is already a significant concession – but Mr Brake wants to go further.
"Potentially one of the most effectively way of reintegrating people is to ensure they are able to conduct a normal life," he explained.
A residency requirement, where suspects would notify the authorities only if they intended to spend a night away from their address, is his favoured alternative.
The TPims regime could even be brought within the criminal law system, setting up the possibility of terror suspects receiving conditions similar to those which apply to bailed suspects.
Judges would then be able to question what progress is being made in relation to a case. Under the old control order regime, no prospect of a conviction – or even a prosecution – is necessary.
Civil liberties campaigning group Liberty suggested that, no matter what the changes won by the Liberal Democrats, the bigger issue would not be resolved.
"Control orders are both unsafe and unfair, allowing for the innocent to be punished without a fair hearing and for the guilty to escape the full force of the law," director of policy Isabella Sankey said.
"The TPims bill essentially retains this legacy. The government can slice, dice and rename control orders all it likes, but that won't change the scandal of indefinite punishment without charge or trial."
Mr Brake insisted that the new TPims regime was very different to control orders, which he said "were never very effective" at monitoring and tracking the activities of those who were subject to them.
"There is a lot of evidence the way they operated actively got in the way of securing prosecutions," he added.
"They were contained but nothing else was done to address the issue. If they were hardcore dedicated potential terrorists, after a period of containment their activities might resume."
