provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act, rushed through both Houses of Parliament and given the Royal Assent in just two days. IT IS CLEAR that the new Act will be used to police the Irish, Black and Muslim communities at least, and beyond this any form of political dissidence. Miscarriages of justice, similar to those already suffered under the PTA will inevitably follow.
As a result of this hastily debated law there will be a shift of the burden of proof. Suspected people will have to show that they are innocent - if they don't, that will be used as evidence of guilt and may be sufficient to convict.
The most notorious innovation is that a police officer "of or above the rank of superintendent" can say in court that "in his opinion" the accused belongs or belonged at a particular time to a "specified" organisation. The court can treat this as evidence, although they cannot convict without other evidence, except in a case in Scotland.
The right to silence is further weakened for people charged with belonging to "specified" illegal organisations. A court or jury can draw inferences from the failure of a suspect to mention a "material" fact which "he could reasonably be expected Many to mention", pro- voices were vided "he was per- raised against mitted to consult a the way the solicitor" before questioning. law was Currently there are passed four specified organisations, including the Real IRA. Any other can be added if the Home Secretary thinks it is "concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it", and "has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire". Courts will be able to order the confiscation of property of people convicted of belonging to specified organisations if "it has been used ...in connection with the activities of the specified organisation, or ... Anyone else who claims to have an interest in the property will have to argue it before the court.
For good measure the act makes it a crime to agree to commit offences anywhere in the world outside the United Kingdom. An act or omission as part of a conspiracy could include sending or receiving a message by any means. The government stressed the intention to catch 'terrorist conspiracies. However, if it so chooses, agreement to block a road or railway line in an act of passive resistance could equally be caught.
In addition to amending Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Act makes a large number of amendments to other laws. It may be that the consequences of some of these changes are also serious attacks on democratic rights and the conduct of trials.
Jack Straw, writing in The Guardian, on the day of the Commons debate said that "we are not rushing into any of this". Tony Blair said in Parliament "In the circumstances, we must be prepared for a carefully moderated, sensible and well-targeted response".
Many voices were raised in Parliament against the way it was asked to pass this law. The first four speakers against the business motion in the Commons to establish the procedure were a scrupulous Tory, one of the Old Labour Right, a firebrand of Unionism and the standard bearer of the Labour Left (Richard Shepherd, Gwyneth Dunwoody, lan Paisley and Tony Benn!) Some of these complaints were reactionary -lan Paisley was unhappy that "Anybody can be lifted under the terms of the Bill". Anyway despite the qualms of many MPs and much adverse comment in the media, Blair's control of the Labour Party ensured that there was no contest.
A massive campaign is needed to highlight what this will mean in practice and to defend those arrested as a result of its sweep. We cannot allow the supposed concession of an annual debate to meet the same fate as the PTA -that of an annual rubber stamping of repression.