The Liberal Democrats were at the forefront of an attempt to block proposals for 'secretive inquests' to be held without jury in sensitive terror cases. On the day before MPs voted on the period of pre-charge detention, David Howarth and Tom Brake spoke out against other aspects of the Government’s misguided counter-terrorism proposals.

Speaking for the Liberal Democrats during day one of report stage debate on the Counter Terrorism Bill, Shadow Solicitor General David Howarth strongly condemned the proposals for 'secretive inquests', arguing such legislation “manages to be simultaneously repugnant, unnecessary, ineffective and premature.”

Mr Howarth said:

“[the legislation] is repugnant because it violates the principle of the separation of the powers. It is unnecessary because the means for effecting most of its ends - public interest immunity and the power of the coroner - already exist to allow the public to be excluded on grounds of national security. It is ineffective because? this system will not bring about closure for the relatives who will not know the basis on which the decision has been made. From their point of view, the uncertainties will continue. It is premature because it is wrong to decide these issues before we know the full structure of the coronial system that the coroners Bill will set up and before we know the final resolution of the issue over the admissibility of intercept evidence in all forms of procedure.”

Mr Howarth highlighted the wide reaching nature of the legislation, saying:

“in a case of a death in custody, if the Secretary of State for Justice, who is responsible for the prison system, were to exercise such powers, he would in effect be a judge in his own cause. We do not need the Human Rights Act to be worried about that; a fundamental principle of the common law is at stake. The Secretary of State is not independent.”

“The hon. Member for Hendon [Labour MP Andrew Dismore, who proposed the amendment] was right to say that these provisions have nothing inherently to do with terrorism. They include any case of the kind just mentioned. The provision that the simple certificate of the Secretary of State is enough to decide that the jury should no longer sit is almost arrogant in its brutality.”

Mr Howarth’s attack on the proposed legislation continued when he went on to criticise the “extraordinary powers” the proposed system would give to Secretaries of State. He said that, if there had to be Specially Appointed Coroners, the Secretary of State should not be given the power to choose them. This decision, Mr Howarth argued, should be the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice. Underscoring the importance of his suggestion, he said: “I oppose all these provisions, but at the very least the Government should concede that principle.”

Mr Howarth observed:

“A politician deciding which judicial officer should be responsible for an individual case? I cannot think of a worse violation of principle. It is a rule that would delight Robert Mugabe, and would probably get him into trouble. It is also the most dangerous of dangerous principles, subverting a basic rule of the constitution and a basic principle of the rule of law.”

28 Labour MPs rebelled against the proposal for ‘secret inquests', but the proposals still passed, with a government majority of 23. [Click here to read the voting record in full]

The Liberal Democrat amendment, which said that if there had to be Specially Appointed Coroners, they should be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, rather than the Secretary of State, was defeated by 331 votes to 269. [Click here to read the voting record in full]

Earlier, Tom Brake, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, defended proposals to improve the way control orders are implemented. Under the proposals, the Director of Public Prosecutions would certify that there was no reasonable prospect of prosecution before restrictive control orders were imposed. Mr Brake said that, although the Liberal Democrats oppose control orders, “when proposals are made to ameliorate them, they are worth looking at.” The improvements that were suggested, he argued, “would go a long way towards improving the orders.” The proposals were defeated by 320 votes to 228.

Mr Brake also called for post-charge questioning, suggesting, “there is almost universal consensus that post-charge questioning is necessary.” And, in an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, Mr Brake called for juries to be given greater power in terror cases.