A Year in Review 2013

Transcription

Liberty and
The Civil Liberties Trust
A Year in Review 2013
1
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Who we are
Who we are
Liberty
Founded in 1934, Liberty is a membership
organisation at the heart of the movement for
fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK.
Our mission
Liberty protects civil liberties and promotes human
rights. We believe in the values of individual human
dignity, equal treatment and fairness.
How we work
Liberty works through a combination of public
campaigning, test case litigation, parliamentary
campaigning, policy analysis and the provision
of free advice and information.
How we are funded
Liberty receives valuable funding from a combination
of membership subscriptions, donations, legacies,
grants and the support of The Civil Liberties Trust.
The Civil Liberties Trust is a registered charity
(registration number 1024948). The charity advances
human rights through funding the charitable activities
of Liberty. This report reflects the work and success
of Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust.
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk
Freedom can be fleeting
and equality hard to secure
in ever-shifting day-to-day
difficulties. But on this
ground we stand or fall
together – our rights are
only as strong as they
are universal.
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Liberty’s year in numbers
Liberty’s year in numbers
Liberty’s public
campaigning
Liberty ran 8 major campaigns
Liberty launched
2 new campaigns
Liberty posted 93 blogs
Liberty produced
over 30 press releases
and 20 comment pieces
Liberty sent almost
500,000 emails to members
and supporters
Liberty took part in more than
80 talks at schools, universities,
events and conferences
Liberty’s legal activities
More than 3,600
pieces of free advice and
information were provided
via Liberty’s Adviceline,
www.yourrights.org.uk
and in writing
Liberty represented more
than 40 clients challenging
abuses of human rights and
civil liberties
Liberty made 14 expert third
party interventions
Liberty brought
5 judicial reviews
Liberty participated
in 9 cases and interventions
in the European Court
of Human Rights
Liberty’s reach
Liberty’s press releases and
blogs were viewed over
28,000 times online
Media outlets mentioned
Liberty 4,341 times in local and
national media, including print,
online, TV and radio
Liberty’s spokespeople
participated in 142 broadcast
media appearances
Media outlets approached
Liberty over 2,500 times for
expert advice and opinion
2,514 people contacted their
MP with Liberty’s support
Over 3,000 campaign
documents were downloaded
from Liberty’s website
Liberty reached more than
512,000 people through
Facebook
Liberty in parliament
Liberty produced
46 briefings for MPs and Peers,
13 expert evidence papers,
and 9 responses to statutory
More than 17,000 people
followed Liberty’s updates
on twitter
consultations
Liberty was mentioned 130
times in parliamentary debate
2
3
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Liberty’s Impact
Liberty’s impact in 2013
By Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty
Welcome to our review of 2013, where you can read
about some of the work of Liberty, the oldest human
rights group in the country.
We are coming to a pivotal
moment for rights and freedoms
in the UK: legal aid slashed, due
process and the Rule of Law
undermined, and the Human
Rights Act under threat. Universal
rights will be embraced and
embedded to everyone’s benefit,
or they’ll be sheared back in favour
of exceptionalism to everyone’s
harm. Freedom can be fleeting
and equality hard to secure in
ever-shifting day-to-day difficulties.
But on this ground we stand or fall
together – our rights are only as
strong as they are universal.
So I hope Liberty’s
successes serve as an
inspiration and renew
your energy to continue
the fight against the
erosion of our precious
and hard-won rights.
One of our most high profile
interventions was in the area of
surveillance. We saw a significant
victory early in the year, with
proposals to monitor our online
communications dropped after
concerted campaigning – only
to be shocked, if not entirely
surprised, by the staggering
revelations of Edward Snowden.
It’s going to be a long journey
to change the law to protect
our privacy, but our two legal
challenges (pages 9–10) are an
important step along the way.
Faced with this momentous task,
we are heartened by success
in other areas we have long
campaigned on. We helped remove
the word ‘insulting’ from Section 5
of the Public Order Act, which had
led to some absurd restrictions
on free speech (page 7). We are
challenging discriminatory stopand-search and unregulated
undercover policing (page 12), and
we continue in our opposition to
‘Schedule 7’– the power to hold
people at airports for hours,
intrusively search them and their
computers, all without suspicion
(page 18).
We’re also fighting for justice in
some shocking cases of state
failure to protect people. We’ve
made positive progress with
our legal cases regarding the
suspicious deaths of three young
people in the military and have
called for an overhaul of how
complaints of abuse are handled
(page 11), and we helped a woman
who was held as a domestic slave
and subjected to horrific abuse,
only to be failed by the police who
refused to act (page 7).
These examples and more serve
to demonstrate the value of
the Human Rights Act to us all.
But we’re still up against a daily
barrage of misinformation, which
is why our mythbusting and
education work is more essential
than ever (pages 5–6).
Liberty matters because human
rights matter – and there are
unintended consequences that
come with unchecked power.
I’m heartened that, despite an
often toxic and misleading political
debate about human rights,
more and more people I meet
are waking up to the indisputable
value of their rights and freedoms.
The popularity of our anti-’Go
Home’ van stunt (page 14) showed
that many reject the xenophobic
policies pouring from the
Home Office.
So as we enter our 80th year,
what I ask of you is this: join us
and be heard.
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | About Liberty
The proud role of
a Liberty member
The support of The
Civil Liberties Trust
By Frances Butler, Chair of Liberty
By The Hon Susan Baring OBE,
Chair of The Civil Liberties Trust
As I reflect on what Liberty has achieved in 2013
I am reminded of why I am so proud to be a member
and so honoured to serve as Chair. In the face of
continuing incursions into rights and freedoms
it is Liberty who has set the agenda and held the
powerful to account over nearly eight decades. I give
huge thanks to the professional team who campaign
so effectively on our behalf through expert policy
positions, strategic litigation, public campaigns
and the media. But we couldn’t do it without our
members. It is Liberty members who get the
campaigning messages out across the country, who
provide the credibility that legitimises our work and
who provide the financial support that is essential
for our survival. I thank you wholeheartedly for
supporting Liberty’s vital work. I also urge everyone
who is inspired by this Review to join
us too because Liberty will always,
as E M Forster urged, “champion the
liberties of the people in the fight
that is never done.”
I am honoured to be the new Chair of
The Civil Liberties Trust, a charitable
entity set up in the 1960s to support
what was then the National Council for
Civil Liberties, now Liberty.
I became a Trustee in 2009 and had
the good fortune to serve under our
inspired Chair Christine Jackson. Christine joined the
National Council as a young, energetic volunteer in
the 60s and worked for the organisation throughout
her life. She served on the Board and then as Chair of
the Trust. It was under her dedicated Chairmanship
that we were able to raise the money to move from
our cramped premises in Southwark to our present
modern and efficient home in Westminster in 2011.
She fought like a tiger both for Liberty and for many
years against cancer, finally dying last year. We all
remember her with love and the greatest admiration.
The Trust has been proud to support Liberty’s
awareness raising and legal work in 2013, and to
be able to continue to meet threats to our human
rights and civil liberties we have set up a new
supporter group called Guardians of Liberty. Please
do see the Liberty website or contact the office for
more information.
Plans for 2014
In 2014 Liberty’s work remains broad in scope but some priority areas will include:
•Defending the Human Rights Act and the universal
framework of human rights
•Campaigning for better protection for military
personnel who complain of abuse
•Tackling the unlawful and unregulated surveillance
of electronic communications
•2014 will be Liberty’s 80th year and we
will be using it to raise awareness and
recruit more members. Please see
www.liberty80.org for more information.
•Resisting toxic immigration policies and the
stripping away of rights from foreign nationals
4
5
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Common Values
Common Values
Liberty’s Common Values campaign
strives to protect the Human Rights Act
(HRA) and the international framework
guaranteeing universal rights, freedoms
and equal treatment.
The Human Rights Act 1998 places a legal obligation
on public authorities to act in accordance with the
fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the
European Convention on Human Rights. The Act
has been instrumental in integrating human rights
considerations into decision making at all levels. Sadly,
the Act is much maligned and misunderstood and
suffers from almost constant misinformed attacks.
little-reported instances where the Act had a positive
influence, including gaining justice for 17-year-olds
who were held in police custody as adults, people
who died in a fire in a negligently maintained block
of flats and soldiers who died on duty whist being
inadequately protected. We also took out a press
advertisement celebrating International Human
Rights Day on 10 December (see opposite), specifically
challenging the Home Secretary’s promise to ‘scrap’
the HRA.
Improving understanding of human rights
Liberty continued to strive to improve understanding
of human rights, producing 17 press releases and
42 blogs throughout the year promoting positive
human rights stories and challenging threats and
inaccurate myths. We sought to highlight otherwise
Human rights myth busting
Case study: Paul Houston
Paul Houston’s daughter Amy was killed in a hit and
run. The driver was a foreign national and repeat
offender; Paul campaigned for him to be deported.
The driver remained in the UK and Paul was led
to believe that the Human Rights Act (HRA) was
responsible for blocking deportation. The case was
frequently cited by the media as a justification for
‘scrapping’ the HRA. During 2013 Liberty helped to
reveal the truth behind the myth.
Liberty first met Paul when he had been ‘pitted
against’ our Director of Policy in a television debate
about the HRA. Following the encounter, Paul asked
Liberty for help to discover if the HRA truly was
responsible for the driver who killed his daughter
remaining in the UK. Liberty’s legal team investigated
and discovered that in actual fact the Home Office had
simply never tried to deport the driver on the grounds
that his presence was not conducive to the public
good – all they had done was seek his administrative
www.ilovehumanrights.com
removal, an important distinction which had meant
that the Court had not properly examined the full
extent of his repeated criminal offending. If it had
done so, it is very likely that he would have been
deported because his offending would have probably
outweighed the human rights considerations. The
Court of Appeal was extremely critical of the Home
Office’s handling of the case. We complained to the
Parliamentary Ombudsman which also recorded an
admission by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) that they
had not been completely frank with Paul over the
Home Office’s handling of the case. We showed
that the real reason the driver remained in the UK
was through failings and inefficiency in the
immigration system.
Liberty helped Paul to publicise the findings in an
article in The Guardian in April ‘The memory of my
daughter Amy Houston has been dishonoured; my
daughter’s death was used to undermine the Human
Rights Act, I now see how wrong that was’.
Human rights education
Improving education around human rights is a key
focus of the Common Values campaign and so we
were dismayed when the Department for Education
released a consultation on a new school curriculum
that omitted any reference to teaching human rights.
Liberty responded to the consultation, stressing
the importance of teaching children about human
rights values and the UK’s historic involvement in the
development of the human rights framework. If we
want our youngsters to leave school as responsible
citizens, teaching them about our proud human
rights framework and the ideals which underpin it is
essential. We were delighted in June when we received
a response praising our submission and confirming
human rights education had been reinstated into the
national curriculum.
As part of celebrating International Human Rights Day
and the 60th birthday of the European Convention, we
distributed copies of Liberty’s Human Rights Resource
Pack to 4,923 secondary schools in England, Scotland
and Wales. The resource pack is also available online
or by writing to Liberty.
The international framework of human rights
The relationship with the European Convention and
European Court of Human Rights is crucial to the
protection of rights and freedoms in the UK, but it
is something that is dangerously misunderstood. In
2013 this came to prominence in the renewed debate
over prisoners’ voting rights; the UK blanket ban on
prisoners voting was ruled incompatible with the
Convention in the European Court of Human Rights
case Hirst v UK in 2005. Debate raged with some
taking the opportunity to inaccurately argue that the
UK should pull out of the Convention to preserve
parliamentary sovereignty. Liberty was pleased when
the Government finally broke the stalemate and
brought forward the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)
Bill, introducing limited voting rights. We submitted
evidence to the Committee scrutinising the draft bill,
urging them to keep in mind the implications of noncompliance with the judgments of an international
court, both for the UK’s reputation around the
world and our commitment to the Rule of Law at
home. Our submission was directly referenced
during parliamentary debate and, gratifyingly, the
Committee’s resulting report in December 2013
recommended that the ban on prisoner voting be
lifted and that Government bring forward legislation
in the 2014/15 parliamentary session.
Liberty’s press advertisement celebrating International
Human Rights Day
Improving the application of human rights
As well as promoting the Human Rights Act, we seek
to ensure that the Act is adequately enforced and the
rights and freedoms of people in the UK are respected.
The right to life and the right to freedom from
torture, inhuman or degrading treatment
(Articles 2 and 3)
Liberty is challenging the Government’s use of force
policy, which governs the way private security staff
can use force during deportation by aircraft. We saw
the tragic failings of this policy in the 2013 inquest
into the death of Jimmy Mubenga who was found
to have been ‘unlawfully killed’ by guards during his
attempted deportation. Liberty challenged the use of
force policy in court, arguing that one of the permitted
procedures, ‘control and restraint’, (which was used
against Mr Mubenga, forcing his head between his
knees until he suffocated) was so dangerous that it
breached Articles 2 and 3. Sadly, the court decided
that although the failings in the policy were significant
and needed to be addressed, they did not render the
policy non-compliant with Articles 2 and 3. However,
the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal and
the new hearing will be in June 2014.
(continued on next page)
6
7
The right to freedom from forced labour
(Article 4)
During 2013, Liberty supported a woman who
had been trafficked to the UK from India, held as a
domestic slave and subjected to horrific abuse. Our
client twice tried to flee but found no help from the
police who, in a tragic failure of responsibility, returned
her to the house of her abusers. Our client finally
escaped successfully but again found little help from
the police who decided not to prosecute her abusers.
Liberty took her case and successfully challenged the
police’s decision; criminal proceedings were brought
against six people and in April 2013 three were found
guilty of serious abuse including ABH, rape and
threats to kill. We continued to support our client in
a civil claim against Hertfordshire Police for failing to
help, in breach of their duty under Article 4. The police
settled the case, including awarding compensation
and issuing a full apology.
The right to freedom of expression (Article 10)
Liberty has long campaigned against Section 5 of
the Public Order Act, which criminalised ‘insulting’
speech and behaviour. We argued the legislation was
too broad and subjective and had been used to limit
free speech. We produced parliamentary briefings in
support of an amendment to the Crime and Courts
Bill to remove the word ‘insulting’ from Section 5 and
we were delighted when the amendment passed.
We continue to campaign for the full repeal of the
overly broad Section 5 and an equivalent provision in
the Communications Act, which has similarly broad
restrictions on freedom of expression online.
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
•Writers at Liberty
In December 2013, Liberty
launched an exciting new
initiative called Writers at
Liberty, a loose coalition of
writers on hand to assist
us in our role to raise
awareness, communicate
and persuade when it comes
to pressing human rights
and civil liberties issues in
the UK. In February 2014, 80
authors from the Writers at
Liberty group helped to raise
awareness of human rights
in conjunction with Liberty’s
80th anniversary.
•In 2014 Liberty will respond
to the Prime Minister’s
Holocaust Commission, urging
the Commission to remember
human rights as a positive
and enduring legacy of countries
around the world addressing the
horrors of the Second World War.
•Liberty will continue to
respond to attacks on
the Human Rights Act in
the run up to the general
election, particularly in light
of Conservative proposals
to bring forward a Draft
British Bill of Rights, which
may seek to undermine the
universality of our human
rights framework.
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Protecting the fundamental right to privacy
Protecting the fundamental right
to a private and family life (Article 8)
Liberty has had considerable success
protecting the fundamental right
to privacy in recent years, including
defeating ID Cards and successfully
lobbying for the destruction of innocent
people’s DNA records. However, many
challenges remain.
The bedroom tax
In March Liberty announced we would be seeking
judicial review of the Government’s controversial
‘bedroom tax’ policy, because of its damaging
impact on families with separated parents. The
judicial review is on behalf of three parents who share
the care of their children. In each case the other
parent is deemed to be the primary carer, so the
children’s rooms in our clients’ houses are treated as
unoccupied and our clients’ housing benefits will be
reduced. Our clients cannot afford to pay the shortfall
in their rent and if they move to smaller properties
they are unlikely to maintain substantial residential
contact with their children. We argue the ‘bedroom
tax’ is incompatible with Article 8.
Balancing privacy and freedom of expression
Liberty’s Director was tasked with this as a member of
Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into media ethics during
2012. Despite being largely in favour of the resulting
report, we are unsatisfied with the Royal Charters
proposed as a means of press regulation. Our
submission to the consultation on the Royal Charter
stressed that, as a model more tied to the government
than any Act of Parliament, a Royal Charter is
constitutionally inappropriate, undemocratic, opaque
and in no way fit for purpose. We will continue to
campaign for a more effective way to balance privacy
and freedom of expression.
More positively, our submission to the parliamentary
debates of the Defamation Bill received recognition
in the House of Lords. We called for protection for
organisations genuinely and seriously disadvantaged
through inaccurate reporting to pursue a claim in
defamation, whilst reducing the potential for deeppocketed corporations to stifle free speech. We were
satisfied when our proposals were reflected in the
final Defamation Act.
The role of Article 8 in the immigration sphere
In 2013 there were more calls and moves to further
restrict the application of Article 8 for foreign
nationals or families of foreign nationals in the UK.
Early in 2013, Liberty took the opportunity to challenge
these moves in a response to the All Party Group on
Migration’s Inquiry into the new Family Migration Rules.
Our response condemned two recent developments:
the recently implemented minimum income
requirement for a foreign spouse wishing to join their
partner in the UK and the new immigration rules
which narrow judicial discretion to prevent removal
of a foreign nationals on Article 8 grounds. The
resulting report was highly critical of the impact of the
changes on genuine families and in July the High Court
suspended the minimum income requirement on the
grounds that it breached Article 8, as we predicted.
In April, during the late stages of the Crime and Courts
Bill, a backbench amendment (supported by over 100
cross-party MPs) was tabled which proposed to oust
the jurisdiction of the courts to prevent deportation
of a foreign national subject to the automatic
deportation regime on the basis of Article 8. We sent
a briefing to MPs urging them to vote against the
inclusion of the amendment but ultimately time ran
out to debate the amendment. A similar unsuccessful
attempt was made in early 2014.
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
•We are seriously concerned over the
repeated attempts to limit the role of Article
8 in the immigration sphere. The Immigration
Bill introduced in 2013 will put a number
of restrictive immigration rules into primary
legislation and the Home Secretary has
indicated further legislation in this area.
We will continue to oppose these moves,
through parliamentary briefings on the
Immigration Bill and by utilising all other
necessary campaigning methods.
8
9
Challenging a breach of trust
on the grandest scale
Liberty’s ‘In Private I...’ public photo stunt
In 2013 the Edward Snowden leaks
revealed a system of online surveillance
that equated to a breach of trust on the
grandest scale.
Throughout 2012, Liberty led the multi-disciplinary
campaign No Snoopers’ Charter against plans to
introduce mass capture and storage of electronic
communications data. In April 2013, in a landmark
victory for Liberty, the Deputy Prime Minister
announced the plans had been dropped. However,
mere days later, documents leaked by NSA
whistle-blower Edward Snowden revealed that the
organisations that had failed to make the case for
the so-called snoopers’ charter were in fact already
conducting breathtaking levels of online surveillance.
Liberty was quick to react: Liberty’s Director
expressed condemnation of blanket, unregulated
surveillance in interviews on BBC Radio 4’s Today
programme, BBC News, Sky News and ITV News, while
other spokespeople gave interviews to Radio 4’s PM
programme together with various regional broadcast
stations. Liberty’s response was also included in news
stories across the print and online media from the
Daily Mail to The Guardian, The Telegraph, the Daily
Mirror and beyond.
We drew on our international partners to address
the multi-national significance of the allegations.
We issued a joint statement with human rights
organisations from across the world highlighting
concerns over potential breaches of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political rights and other
international laws that require that states provide
legal protections to guarantee against interference
or attacks on individual privacy. The statement was
published in The Guardian newspaper.
In the Liberty summer newsletter, we launched a
photo stunt ‘In Private I…’. This allowed members
and supporters to contribute to the campaign,
addressing the oft-quoted ‘nothing to hide, nothing
to fear’ argument by sharing something they do in
private. Members and supporters responded well,
see above.
In November we welcomed the opportunity for clarity
over the security service’s activities when chiefs of
MI5, MI6 and GCHQ participated in a public evidence
session with the Intelligence and Security Committee
(ISC). Liberty representatives eagerly attended the
sessions but were sadly let down by the proceedings.
Very little, if any, new information entered the public
domain and the witnesses used the opportunity to
make unsubstantiated claims about the impact of the
Snowden leaks on national security.
Utilising our experience and legal capacity,
we took the lead in challenging the British
Intelligence Services directly in two legal actions:
First, we lodged an application with the Investigatory
Powers Tribunal (IPT) asking them to investigate the
allegations that British Intelligence Services have used
PRISM and/or Tempora to bypass the formal UK legal
process which regulates access to personal material.
Secondly, we lodged a further application with
the IPT on behalf of an international coalition of six
human rights groups. The coalition believe it is likely
that the British Intelligence Services used Tempora to
monitor private communications – either being sent
to, received from, transferred via or processed in the
UK. We argue this interference is a breach of Article
8 (the right to respect for their private and family
life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
European Convention on Human Rights and that there
is no clear legal framework that permits collection and
storage of such vast quantities of communications.
In November, we honoured
The Guardian’s role in unveiling
this scandalous violation of
personal dignity with the
Independent Voice of the Year
award at the annual Human
Rights Awards. In his acceptance
speech, Alan Rusbridger spoke
about the vital role played
by Edward Snowden and the
importance of the revelations:
When our reporter met Edward
Snowden, the question he kept
asking himself was what could a
29-year-old possibly be revealing
that would make him with his eyes
wide open risk spending the rest
of his life in jail. Over the last five
months, we’ve got some sense of
what this young man saw that so
disturbed him. And it’s this: that
leading intelligence agencies in the
US and the UK decided to embark
on a quite staggering mission to
collect and store everything we
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
•Liberty’s legal actions against the British
Intelligence Services are due to be heard by
the IPT in July 2014.
•We will continue to use every opportunity to
lobby for reform of our out-dated surveillance
laws both in Parliament and beyond. This
includes forming the Don’t Spy on Us coalition
with Open Rights Group, Privacy International,
Big Brother Watch, English Pen, Article 19
and others.
•Following the March 2014 announcement
of the Intelligence and Security Committee
Inquiry into the scandal, to which we have
submitted evidence, we are pressing for
a truly independent public inquiry into the
revelations and the legal framework
governing surveillance in the UK.
do digitally, all the time. The cosy
word for what they scoop up is
‘meta-data’, which either sounds
technical, or harmless, or both,
but meta-data is actually capable
of revealing the complete patterns
of our lives, our relationships, our
health, our friends, our location,
our intention, our movements, our
Google searches, our addictions,
our financial affairs, our religious or
political associations.
So this decision to scoop up and
store everything about us was done
without any meaningful debate or
public consent – quite the opposite.
It’s not clear how much the people
who are supposed to be in oversight
of these systems either understood
them or were told about them or
whether what they were told was
the truth. So, that was what was
worrying Edward Snowden – that we
were unknowingly sleepwalking into
a society where the infrastructure
Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian,
accepting Liberty’s Independent Voice of
the Year Award, November 2013
of total surveillance was being
built behind our backs without
any discussion or wide public
knowledge.
What is perfectly plain from the
Snowden material is that policemen
don’t need to knock on your front
door with a request of a warrant
any longer. They are inside your
lives already.
10
11
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Military Justice
Military Justice
Military Justice campaigns to protect
and uphold the human rights of those
serving in the British Armed Forces; we
believe that the rights of service men and
women are just as deserving of protection
as civilians.
In 2012, Liberty began work on three legal cases
involving suspicious deaths of young people serving
in the armed forces, which alerted us to serious
deficiencies in human rights protection.
Accordingly in 2013, we launched Military Justice
making three simple demands:
•Sexual assault allegations by military personnel
be automatically referred for investigation by the
Service Police and Director of Service Prosecutions
•That all service police forces should be subject
to independent oversight
•An Independent Armed Services Ombudsman be
created with the power to review cases and make
recommendations
Anne-Marie Ellement was serving in the Royal
Military Police when she took her own life. Her
family believe that her experience in the military,
including allegedly being raped and bullied by her
colleagues, contributed to her suicide. The initial
inquest into Anne-Marie’s death failed to investigate
these concerns and left her family with many serious
questions over what had happened to their beloved
daughter and sister.
Information about the campaign is available on our
website where members and supporters can also
Email their MP to show their support for the campaign.
The campaign so far has received significant support
from Madeline Moon MP and has been featured a
number of times in national media including Channel 4
News and Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour.
Cheryl James was a young recruit at Deepcut army
training barracks who died shortly after starting basic
training over fifteen years ago. The inquest into her
death was cursory and failed to address any of the
principal concerns about how a happy young woman
could suddenly be found dead one morning while on
guard duty. Liberty forced the authorities to hand
over all the papers concerning the death and have,
on the basis of the new information uncovered, lodged
an application for a fresh inquest to the Attorney
General. The new evidence includes new forensic
evidence and the fact that witnesses admitted to
having lied on oath.
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
Sean Benton, another young recruit at Deepcut
barracks died in 1995, of gunshot wounds. Sean’s
family have never been given access to the materials
about his death and this process is ongoing. His case
raises serious concerns about army bullying and it is
hoped that an application for a fresh inquest will follow.
Under the Human Rights Act, there is a duty to fully
investigate all serious crimes and deaths. However,
our legal investigations uncovered a system where
investigations are not made and there is nowhere for
people to turn.
•Liberty was successful in securing a fresh
inquest into Anne-Marie Ellement’s death
which reported in February 2014. The Coroner
found that the mental effects of the alleged
rape, the workplace bullying Anne-Marie
suffered and her ‘work related despair’
were all contributing factors to her suicide.
In addition, the Coroner made a number of
recommendations. He will write to the Armed
Forces Minister about ‘blue on blue’ (military)
sexual violence and has called for better
training to be provided on the assessment of
soldiers vulnerable to suicide. A fresh criminal
investigation into Anne-Marie’s allegation of
rape will now take place.
•We have obtained access to all materials held
by the authorities concerning Cheryl James
and an application for a fresh inquest has
been lodged with the Attorney General. The
process of disclosure of materials in relation
to Sean Benton is also underway.
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/military-justice
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Promoting proportionate policing
Promoting proportionate
policing
Disproportionate policing,
overbroad regulations
and scandalous abuse
of police powers
threaten our human
rights and civil liberties;
Liberty campaigns for
proportionate and
targeted policing which
respects individuals and
communities.
The shameful abuse
of undercover policing
During 2012, scandals including
undercover police officers pursuing
sexual relationships with their
surveillance targets caused Liberty
to call for greater judicial oversight
of covert policing operations. The
campaign was bolstered in June
2013 when deeply disturbing
claims were made that undercover
operatives had infiltrated the
grieving family of Stephen
Lawrence in order to obtain
evidence to discredit the family.
We seized the opportunity
to demand an overhaul of
the dangerously unregulated
system of CHIS (Covert Human
Intelligence Sources). We drafted
an amendment to the Anti-Social
Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill
(ASBCP Bill), which would mean
all long term operations would
require prior judicial authorisation,
thus ensuring effective,
independent oversight. Doreen
Lawrence publicly supported our
so-called Lawrence Amendment
and over 250 members and
supporters wrote to their MP
urging them to support the
amendment. The Labour front
bench tabled a similar amendment
which was narrowly defeated
in Parliament. We’ll continue to
build parliamentary support for
prior judicial authorisation for
undercover operations.
Improving regulation of stop
and search powers
Police powers of stop and
search are far too broad and
evidence shows they are
used disproportionately and
discriminatively. Having long
campaigned against dangerous
stop and search powers, we were
gratified to secure a Home Office
consultation in June 2013. Liberty
responded to the consultation,
calling for the repeal of powers to
stop and search without suspicion
in favour of more targeted powers,
increased training for police
officers and greater monitoring
and accountability.
We also supported victims of
unfair and discriminatory stop
and search; achieving justice and
highlighting the evidence for the
need for reform. These included
the case of a 12-year-old black
autistic boy who was stopped
and searched by the police. He
was not given any record of the
search and was very shaken by
the experience. Following Liberty’s
threat of legal action, the police
agreed to pay damages to our
client. We continue to support our
client and his mother in making an
official complaint to the police; she
is hoping to improve the way the
police deal with autistic people.
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
•We are very concerned over
proposals to make water
cannons available to police
forces in the UK. We will
continue to campaign against
the use of such a brutal and
militaristic approach.
•We will campaign for a
replacement body to the
IPCC (Independent Police
Complaints Commission)
with the credibility and
independence to rigorously
investigate complaints against
the police.
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/lawrence-amendment
12
13
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Liberty’s guide to coming to the UK
Liberty’s guide to
Coming to
the UK
Welcome!
A host of initiatives were launched during 2013 which will
make it significantly harder for you to become part of the
community, be successful and live happily in the UK!
A warm welcome: ‘Go Home’
The UK Government has
introduced a number of schemes
which will make you feel not at all
welcome. First, they dispatched
vans to ethnically diverse areas
of London carrying the slogan
‘In the UK illegally? Go Home
or face arrest’. These were
accompanied by immigration
‘spot checks’, which had
questionable legal basis.
Secondly, they drew up a
sloppy list of suspected illegal
immigrants and sent text
messages to them asking them to
leave the country. The target list
included anti-racism campaigners
and immigration advisers. The
initiatives did little more than fuel
fear and intimidate communities.
complex immigration landscape
and will not make it easy for
you to secure accommodation,
participate in the community or
make new friends.
Finding somewhere to live
New proposals will introduce
financial charges for certain
groups of immigrants to access
healthcare. These will place the
health of you and the wider
public at risk and undermine
relationships you have with
trusted professionals when you
are at your most vulnerable.
Under new proposals, you will
have to prove your immigration
status to all potential landlords,
bank managers and a host
of other community-based
organisations. These unfair
obligations have the potential
to punish non-specialists, who
have no formal training in the
What to do when you’re ill
The future
The Government have dreamt up a complex, bureaucratic
nightmare known as the Immigration Bill which could
make all proposals on healthcare charging and landlord
checks a grim reality for you, at the same time as
removing protections designed to ensure that the Home
Office get decisions right.
The Government’s ‘Go-Home’ van
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/immigration-bill
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | The irresponsible and unworkable Immigration Bill
We must stop this becoming a reality
Liberty does not want to see this dystopian
travel guide become a reality. We do not oppose
fair immigration rules, proportionately enforced, but
that doesn’t require polarising publicity stunts that
poison race relations. The truth is that successive
Ministers, in fraught attempts to look tough and
compete with UKIP, have preferred headline-grabbing
gimmicks and endless reams of new legislation to the
rather dull task of tackling delays and inefficiency.
Liberty challenged the disgraceful immigration
initiatives throughout 2013. In response to the illtargeted ‘Go Home Van’ Liberty took to the streets in
a van of our own carrying our opposition statement
‘Stirring up tension and division in the UK illegally? Home
Office, think again’. The anti-‘Go Home’ van drove
round Westminster and targeted areas of London and
was featured heavily on our social media platforms,
where it generated more than 1,000 retweets and
around 100 new followers on Twitter. Liberty’s Policy
Officer who accompanied the van also appeared on
Radio 4’s Today programme, BBC News, Sky News,
BBC London, ITV London Tonight and ITV Daybreak
amongst others and the van was mentioned in
national newspapers including The Guardian, The
Independent, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily
Express, together with hundreds of online and
regional titles.
Ultimately the Government’s ‘Go Home’
initiative proved to be a failure but the
Immigration Bill remains a seriously damaging
piece of legislation. Rather than knuckling down
and trying to fix a system blighted by inefficiency
and error, inexplicably it seems the Home Office’s
answer to existing delays and incompetence is a
regime of even greater dysfunction and complexity.
Liberty submitted critical briefings at both the Second
Reading and Committee Stage of the Immigration
Bill in the House of Commons and provided expert
evidence to the bill’s committee. Our arguments
were mentioned a hugely influential 19 times in
parliamentary debate of the bill during these two
stages alone.
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
•We will continue to oppose the scheme
which would require landlords to check the
immigration status of their tenants. At the very
least these proposals should be piloted; this
will reveal just how unworkable and potentially
discriminatory they are like to be.
•We will continue to oppose provisions of
the Immigration Bill which would provide
for a dangerous extension of the powers of
Immigration Officials to use ‘reasonable force’
and which would provide for those carrying
out immigration spot-checks to take biometric
information from those they stop.
Liberty’s
anti-’Go Home’ van
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/immigration-bill
14
15
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Defending the Rule of Law
Defending access to justice,
due process and the Rule
of Law
The Rule of Law, in its most basic form,
is the principle that no one is above the
law. The most important application
of the Rule of Law is the principle that
governmental authority is legitimately
exercised only in accordance with written,
publicly disclosed laws adopted and
enforced in accordance with established
procedural steps that are referred to as
due process. Fundamental to democracy,
the Rule of Law must be defended.
For Their Eyes Only
During 2012 Liberty launched the large scale campaign
For Their Eyes Only against proposals to extend
the practice of Closed Material Procedures into some
areas of the civil law. The campaign continued into
the first quarter of 2013; we produced numerous
parliamentary briefings, hosted meetings, spoke
directly to parliamentarians and produced wellsupported petitions. Liberty’s arguments were
referenced directly five times in parliamentary debate
and were mentioned hundreds of times in the media.
The hard fought campaign suffered a blow with the
passing of the Justice and Security Act 2013, after
successive battles including a vote lost by just 16
votes in the House of Lords. Whilst this was hugely
disappointing, we mustn’t forget the mountain of
opposition we built, which the Government ignored
in forcing the Bill through. Lawyers, the international
community, the Scottish Government, the national
press and hordes of Liberal Democrat supporters
joined us in rejecting the legislation. Liberty members
also challenged the proposals determinedly, with over
1,000 people contacting their MP and we salute their
dedicated campaigning.
The fight is not over. The first opportunity to
continue the campaign came with the introduction of
amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, designed to
implement the proposals. We produced a briefing for
Peers stressing the profoundly unjust nature of Closed
Material Procedures, which was again referenced
in parliamentary debate.
Liberty’s Legal Director James Welch
speaking at a Justice Alliance rally
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Defending the Rule of Law
We challenged the Government’s creep towards secret
courts in the courts themselves. In 2013, Bank Mellat v
HM Treasury was heard in the Supreme Court. The case
concerned a financial restrictions order made under
the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008; the Government
requested the Supreme Court see some evidence in
a closed session. Liberty intervened arguing it was
an unnecessary infringement on the Rule of Law.
Although the Court did agree to see some evidence in
secret, ultimately the Judges were very critical of the
Government’s insistence, for which they saw no basis.
Loss of access to justice through the
decimation of legal aid and judicial review
Alongside the roll out of the devastating changes
made by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment
of Offenders Act 2012, which removed legal aid
from vast swathes of civil legal challenge, further
announcements were made in 2013 which would
establish even greater barriers to people seeking
justice through the courts.
Proposals would remove legal aid from whole sections
of the public, including vulnerable communities such
as prisoners and immigrants with less than 12 months’
residency. In addition, legal aid funding for judicial
review cases would be slashed. Finally the ability of
third parties to bring their expertise to bear in judicial
review claims would be undermined. The cumulative
result would be to insulate the state from scrutiny;
decisions in relation to unpopular, minority and poor
communities particularly would be dangerously free
from challenge.
From May 2013 onwards, Liberty joined a coalition
of NGOs, unions, legal practitioners and community
groups called the Justice Alliance to call on the
Government to halt the decimation of access to
justice. We took part in demonstrations outside the
Houses of Parliament, the Royal Courts of Justice and
the Old Bailey. We were also active in high profile
media, shedding light on the impact of proposals and
countering arguments about ‘fat-cat lawyers’ and
‘unmeritorious cases’, including a live appearance on
ITV Daybreak and a comment piece for The Times.
Liberty formally opposed changes to legal aid and
judicial review in three written responses to the
Ministry of Justice’s successive consultations stressing
firstly the discriminatory nature of the proposals and
secondly the inherent danger in severely curtailing
options for Government accountability. We argued in
favour of the critical role judicial review plays in our
constitutional settlement and highlighted the vital
Liberty’s Director campaigning for an end
to cuts to legal aid
part it has played in securing redress for some of the
most vulnerable people. Without the availability of
legal aid and judicial review, the Gurkha veterans might
never have achieved justice and Liberty’s support of
Anne-Marie Ellement’s family would never have got off
the ground. We repeated our arguments to the Joint
Committee on Human Rights during its consideration
of reforms affecting access to justice.
The failure of Police and Crime Commissioners?
Throughout 2013, we highlighted the ongoing
manifestations of the concerns we had over
the introduction of elected Police and Crime
Commissioners. We particularly noted our concerns
over their influence in the commissioning of services
for victims of crime, where popular vote-winning
policies often contradict the greatest need. In
November we welcomed the Labour-sponsored
Independent Commission on Policing Report, which
strongly reflected Liberty’s oral and written evidence,
recommending among other things that the Police
and Crime Commissioner scheme be scrapped.
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
•Legal aid and judicial review
We are saddened that a number of proposals
from the consultations, including plans to
remove prison law from the scope of legal
aid, have now materialized as statutory
instruments or have been included in the
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. We are
preparing to challenge these in parliamentary
briefings and further joint working.
16
17
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Fighting the worst excesses of counter-terrorism policy
Fighting the worst excesses
of counter-terrorism policy
Although the War on Terror is no longer in our headlines, many concerns
over counter-terrorism policies remain.
Extradition was a key area of counter-terrorism
policy; fast track extradition agreements were made
which denied basic justice to individuals subject to
extradition orders.
During 2012, a number of welcome developments
were announced, particularly the introduction of
the long campaigned for ‘forum bar’, where a UK
judge has the power to block extradition in the
interests of justice. Sadly, when the forum bar was
formally introduced in the Crime and Courts Bill, it
became clear that the shortcomings of the test in
effect provided very little safeguard against unfair
extradition. In a hugely disappointing move, further
proposals were included in the same bill to remove
another safeguard - the Home Secretary’s power to
block extradition on human rights grounds.
Liberty issued briefings on the Crime and Courts Bill
for MPs and Peers calling for a wholesale rejection
of the proposals. Although Liberty’s briefings were
directly referenced in parliamentary debates, the bill
contained a vast array of proposals and substantive
debate on the extradition developments was limited.
The Crime and Courts Act passed in May 2013
and not only contained a forum bar test that is
skewed towards extradition and heavily fetters judicial
discretion, it also removed the discretion to block
extradition on human rights grounds, leaving those
subject to deportation orders with precious
few safeguards.
In a further blow, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime
and Policing Bill (ASBCP Bill) introduced later in 2013
included proposals to remove the automatic right of
appeal in some extradition cases. We opposed this in
written evidence to the bill’s committee in the summer,
arguing the right is vital to allow people to put their
case to the High Court, to present up-to-date evidence
and challenge the reasoning of the initial order.
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/extradition-watch
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Fighting the worst excesses of counter-terrorism policy
Final call for Schedule 7
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides for
broad and intrusive powers of questioning and
detention with ancillary search powers, all of which
can be exercised without suspicion by a wide range
of officials at ports and boarders. A 2012 review
of these counter-terrorism powers was welcomed
by Liberty but in 2013 we responded to the limited
proposals for reform in the resulting report by
stressing our fundamental opposition to stop and
search without suspicion and its discriminatory
application. We reiterated our opposition when the
report formed part of the ASBCP Bill.
When Schedule 7 was used to detain and search
David Miranda, the partner of the journalist working
with NSA whilst-blower Edward Snowden (see pages
9-10), we went on the offensive. We condemned the
inappropriate use of counter-terrorism powers on
BBC2’s Newsnight, Radio 4’s Today programme, a
comment piece in the Daily Mirror and mentions in
hundreds of print and online media outlets.
There were, however, some positive developments
in the bill, including provision for a bar on extradition
within Europe where a charging decision has not
yet been made and new judicial discretion to bar
extradition within Europe on proportionality grounds.
As well as working in parliament, we continue
to seek justice for individuals subject to unfair
extradition orders. Our client Eileen Clark is
subject to extradition proceedings to the USA,
charged with international parent kidnapping having
fled her abusive husband with her three young
children in the mid-1990s. At the time, Eileen travelled
to the UK legally and lived here without challenge;
the children are all now at university. We applied for
Eileen’s extradition to be blocked on human rights
grounds. Our application included evidence that she
was the victim of serious and sustained domestic
abuse forcing her to flee.
Regrettably, the Home Secretary twice rejected our
application. In a very hard and extremely disappointing
decision, she recommended domestic violence be
used as a defence in the USA but could not be used to
block extradition. In a final attempt to secure justice,
we have issued judicial review proceedings of the
decision and await a ruling from the court.
On the basis of the Miranda scandal, we drafted an
additional briefing to the ASBCP Bill urging MPs to
utilise the bill to repeal Schedule 7. We also created
a new online resource setting out our arguments
to members and supporters. Alongside our
campaign work, we also utilised our legal expertise
to intervene in support of David Miranda in his
challenge to Schedule 7.
We also continued our own legal challenge on
behalf of our client who was likewise detained
at Heathrow under Schedule 7. Our client was
detained for over four hours on his way home from
Saudi Arabia; he was interrogated about his salary
and voting habits, his possessions were searched
and his mobile phone and credit cards were taken.
We are supporting his challenge against Schedule 7
in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing it is
incompatible with Articles 5 (the right to liberty) and
8 (the right to privacy) of the European Convention
on Human Rights.
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
•We were dismayed when the High Court found
the detention of David Miranda was lawful
under Schedule 7. We intend to continue our
intervention should the case be appealed and
to argue that if such a barefaced abuse of
power is lawful then the law must change.
•We are awaiting the opportunity to intervene
in a European Court of Human Rights case in
which two men allege that UK authorities were
complicit in their torture in Pakistan, including
knowing that one of the men had their
fingernails pulled out. The case is currently
adjourned on the Government’s application
pending the outcome of civil proceedings in
the UK.
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/schedule-7
18
19
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Protecting freedom and fairness for all
Protecting freedom
and fairness for all
As the leading domestic expert in human
rights and civil liberties, Liberty seeks to
provide advice and guidance as widely as
possible, protecting freedom and fairness
for all.
Equal marriage
Liberty was thrilled with the introduction of the
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in 2013. We fully
supported the permissive regime that would allow
those faiths that wished to conduct same-sex
marriages to do so, whilst allowing other faiths
to remain opposed, which we had specifically
advocated for.
The one area where we continued to campaign
for change was the unresolved inequality in the
regulation of occupational pension schemes.
This had been brought to our attention by a legal
client who was challenging his pension scheme for
refusing to pay the same survivor’s pension to his civil
partner that they would have paid to his widow had
he been married. The pension scheme had separate
provisions for same sex couples, based on the date of
the Civil Partnership Act. Although within legal limits,
the provisions were extremely unfair, leaving samesex partners thousands of pounds worse off than
their heterosexual colleagues.
We drafted an amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex
Couples) Bill which would outlaw such discriminatory
provisions. The amendment was tabled by Kate Green
MP, Shadow Minister for Equalities, in the House of
Commons and by Lord Ali in the House of Lords.
Concurrently, we publicised our campaign for equal
pensions in online adverts and raised the issue with
trade unions, securing supportive statements from
five of the biggest: UNISON, CWU, TUC, GMB and PCS.
In total, Liberty’s input was referenced an incredibly
significant 17 times in parliamentary debate on the bill.
Overjoyed at the passing of the Act and legalising
of equal marriage, we were disappointed our equal
pensions amendment was not included in full.
However, we were pleased the Government was at
least persuaded to make provision for a review of
pensions regulations.
The dangerous Deprivation of Liberty
Safeguards (DoLS)
We have significant concerns that the Deprivation
of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) established in the
Mental Capacity Act 2005 give insufficient protection
to people with limited or fluctuating capacity. We
also believe there is evidence that the safeguards,
insufficient as they are, are not being properly applied
in practice.
Following a letter we sent to the Joint Committee on
Human Rights in September 2012 and a meeting with
the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in
January 2013, where we encouraged an inquiry into
the operation of DoLS, we were delighted when a
Post-Legislative Inquiry into the Mental Capacity Act
2005 was announced in the House of Lords. Liberty
provided oral and written evidence, drawing on our
experience of supporting a number of residents of
the notorious Winterbourne View hospital, who had
been subjected to incredibly distressing abuse by staff
employed to care for them.
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Protecting freedom and fairness for all
Gagging Bill
Proposals to widen the scope of regulation of
campaigning organisations in the year preceding
a general election were included in Part 2 of the
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party campaigning
and Trade Union Administration Bill, leading to the bill
quickly becoming known as the ‘Gagging Bill’. Liberty
joined forces with 38 Degrees and other third sector
experts to raise serious concerns over the effect
the gagging bill would have on open and informed
debate and accountability. We secured a number
of amendments to the bill including increasing the
amount organisations are allowed to spend on
campaigning and removing spending on AGMs from
the scope of proposals. However, there remains much
uncertainty and huge concern over the potential to
silence incredibly valuable debate in the run up to the
general election 2015. This could mean that bad policy
by-passes expert scrutiny and amendment to become
bad law.
The fall of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
(ASBOs)
Liberty has long campaigned against ASBOs, which
dangerously blur the divide between civil and criminal
law and in 2013 we welcomed the announcement that
ASBOs were to be replaced. However, disappointingly,
the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
(ASBCP Bill) proposed replacement sanctions that
covered even wider categories and that would be
easier to impose. Liberty produced four parliamentary
briefings setting out detailed analysis and advising the
proposed powers were too wide, the definitions too
broad and the burden of proof too low. Particularly,
we opposed Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance or
Annoyance Orders (IPNAs), which sought to penalise
subjective and broadly defined ‘nuisance’, and Public
Space Protection Orders, which allowed for blanket
restrictions to be imposed on entire communities.
We were delighted when the sloppy and dangerously
broad definitions used for IPNAs were narrowed.
’S
WHAT
NEX T ?
•Equal pensions
The Government agreed to review our
amendment within 12 months and we
are preparing to campaign again. In the
meantime we continued to highlight
the inequality and drafted a suggested
amendment to the Pensions Bill, which was
tabled by Dr Caroline Lucas MP.
•DoLS
The report from the House of Lords inquiry
in 2014 confirmed many of Liberty’s fears
that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had
failed and the safeguards had been used
to take away people’s rights. We will now
campaign forcefully for new legislation
and an independent body to review
decisions to detain people of limited or
fluctuating capacity.
20
21
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Celebrating Human Rights Heroes
Honouring human
rights heroes
Inspirational human rights
heroes from all walks of
life were again rewarded
for their dedication at
Liberty’s annual Human
Rights Awards.
Among the winners were
Caroline Criado-Perez, who
was named Campaigner of the
Year for leading the campaign
calling for the reinstating of a
prominent female figure on the
reverse of the UK’s currency.
Susan Smith, Colin Redpath,
Karla Ellis and Courtney Ellis
won the Far from Home Award
for their determined fight for
justice for their loved ones,
all killed in Snatch Land Rover
vehicles in Iraq – leaving a legacy
of Human Rights Act protection
for all service personnel. And
Paul Houston took the Close to
Home Award for his courageous
defence of rights and freedoms in
response to a toxic campaign that
used his daughter Amy’s death to
undermine the Human Rights Act.
Celeste Dandeker-Arnold, OBE
was honoured with the Arts Award
in association with the Southbank
Centre for her work with the UK’s
first integrated dance company
featuring disabled and able-bodied
dancers. Stephanie Harrison QC
gave an impassioned speech on
receiving the award for Lawyer
of the Year for her prowess as an
advocate for human rights and
commitment to progressing the
rights of immigrants and asylum
seekers and contesting oppressive
anti-terrorism measures.
Meanwhile, The Guardian
was honoured with the
Independent Voice of the Year
accolade for its ethical journalism
in exposing the truth about blanket
electronic surveillance by US
and UK intelligence services.
The newspaper’s editor-in-chief,
Alan Rusbridger, collected the
award. Jinan Younis received the
Doreen Lawrence and Lance
Sergeant Johnson Beharry VC
Christine Jackson Young Person
Award for showing enormous
dignity and courage in overcoming
hostile resistance both from
within and outside her school
community to set up a feminist
society at her all-girls’ school. The
Holocaust Educational Trust
was given the Collective Voice Award
for providing education, training
and outreach programmes to
combat anti-Semitism, racism
and prejudice in schools, colleges
and the community over the
last 25 years. And race relations
campaigner Doreen Lawrence
received a standing ovation as she
accepted the Lifetime Achievement
Award for her dedicated fight
to reform policing and national
values following the murder of
her son, Stephen.
We really have to recognise that the
Human Rights Convention is a critical
safeguard below which we cannot
allow people in this country to fall. If
we don’t stand up to defend it we are
going to lose it…that’s an obligation for
everybody here.
(l–r) Katherine Grainger CBE,
Lord Kerr, Stephanie Harrison QC
and Sandi Toksvig
Stephanie Harrison QC, Liberty’s Lawyer of the Year
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Thank you
Thank you
Liberty and The Civil Liberties Truest would like to thank the following people
and organisations
For speaking at our AGM
and members’ conference
For supporting our
legal work
For providing
essential funding
Madeleine Colvin
Allen & Overy LLP
Allen & Overy
Dinah Crystal OBE
Clifford Chance LLP
Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
Cory Doctorow
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
Ian Dunt
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
J Paul Getty Jr Charitable Trust
Sharon Hardy
Reed Smith LLP
Jolanta and Max Neufeld Charitable
Trust
For supporting our
Human Rights Awards
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
Lance Sergeant Johnson Beharry VC
Oak Foundation
Rory Bremner
Open Society Foundations
Benedict Cumberbatch
Reed Foundation
Katherine Grainger CBE
Reed Smith LLP
The 1970 Trust
Barbara Hannigan
The Big Give
Rt. Hon. Simon Hughes MP
The Eleanor Rathbone Charitable
Trust
Gus Hosein
Fiona Horlick
Martin Howe
Marina Hyde
Jim Killock
Joanna Lumley
Sonali Naik
Robert Sharp
Carol Storer
Khristina Swain
Emily Thornberry MP
For taking part in our party
conference fringe events
Diane Abbott MP
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
Richard Howitt MEP
Dr Julian Huppert MP
Peter Kellner
Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon
OBE
Kevin Maguire
The Rt. Hon. the Lord McNally
Peter Oborne
Jude Kelly OBE
Mactaggart Third Fund
The Rt. Hon. the Lord Kerr
of Tonaghmore
The Eva Reckitt Trust Fund
Dr Caroline Lucas MP
The Philamonic Trust
Joanna Lumley OBE FRGS
The Phyllis & Ben Charitable Trust
Mary McCartney
The Portrack Charitable Trust
David Morley
The Sigrid Rausing Trust
Frances O’Grady
The Street Foundation
Emeli Sandé
Trust for London
Southbank Centre
Sandi Toksvig
Chuka Umunna MP
For supporting our
campaigning work
The Orp Foundation
We would also like to thank all
our members, individual donors,
volunteers and those who
remembered us in their will.
Ben Cooper
Lord Jones of Birmingham KT
Janis Sharp
Amanda Platell
22
23
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Finances
Income and expenditure
for the year ended 31 December 2013
The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty)
2013
£
2012
£
Income
Grants, donations and legacies
Membership subscriptions
Legal and other earned income
Interest receivable
Total income 1,524,655
512,669
153,041
8,667
2,199,032
1,256,130
502,448
77,872
12,150
1,848,600
Expenditure
Legal and advice work
Membership and fundraising
Campaigns
Policy
Media Governance
Total expenditure 412,275
348,152
432,144
287,957
272,112
33,602
1,786,242
366,659
325,085
407,168
270,337
235,143
37,319
1,641,711
Balance sheet as at 31 December 2013
Fixed assets
Current assets
Deferred grant income
Other creditors
Net assets
91,711
1,614,891
(185,417)
(99,682)
1,421,503
42,360
1,177,518
(141,667)
(69,498)
1,008,713
Restricted funds
Unrestricted funds General fund
Designated funds Total funds 84,879
1,244,913
91,711
1,421,503
38,162
928,191
42,360
1,008,713
Statement from the Board of The National Council
for Civil Liberties (Liberty)
The summarised accounts above have been extracted from the full
annual financial statements of The National Council for Civil Liberties
prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 2006, which were
approved by the Board on 25th March 2014. The full annual financial
statements have been audited and the auditors’ opinion was unqualified.
They are to be submitted to the Register of Companies. For further
information the full statements, the auditors’ report on the financial
statements and the Board’s annual report should be consulted. Copies
of these may be obtained from the Secretary at Liberty House,
26–30 Strutton Ground, London SW1P 2HR.
2013 Income £2,199,032
1%
Interest
receivable
7%
Legal and other
earned income
23%
Membership
subscriptions
69%
Grants, donations
and legacies
2013 Expenditure £1,786,242
2%
15%
Governance
Media
24%
Promoting Liberty’s campaigns
using press releases, blogs,
comment pieces and broadcast
appearances, achieving over
3,000 media mentions.
Campaigns
Promoting Liberty’s
campaigns to the public
using Liberty’s website,
campaign literature, email
Facebook, Twitter and
public stunts.
16%
Policy
Providing expert
analysis and
advice across a
wide spectrum of
human rights and
civil liberties laws,
regulations and
proposals.
23%
Legal
Providing specialist advice,
information and representation
to individuals challenging
infringements of human rights
and civil liberties.
20%
Membership and fundraising
Increasing support for Liberty’s campaigns and
keeping members well informed resulting in a
combined income of £2 million to Liberty and
The Civil Liberties Trust (see overleaf).
24
25
Income and expenditure
for the year ended 31 December 2013
2013
£
2012
£
Income
Voluntary income including legacies
468,909
Investment income - bank interest
2,578
Incoming resources from charitable activities 153,769
Total income
625,256
558,707
5,298
155,242
719,247
Expenditure
Costs of generating funds
Grants payable to Liberty
Other charitable expenditure
Total expenditure
3,499
651,895
64,264
719,658
3,649
514,666
69,218
587,533
Balance sheet as at 31 December 2013
Fixed asset – freehold property
Current assets
Creditors
Net assets
2,541,918
509,678
(85,451)
2,966,145
2,597,152
507,507
(44,112)
3,060,547
Unrestricted funds General fund
Designated funds Total funds 424,227
2,541,918
2,966,145
463,395
2,597,152
3,060,547
Note
The summarised accounts above have been extracted from the unaudited
financial statements of The Civil Liberties Trust. The full audited statutory
report and accounts will be available from the Charity at Liberty House,
26–30 Strutton Ground, London SW1P 2HR after they have been
approved, which is scheduled for the Board meeting on 13th May 2014.
Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Governance
Governance
Liberty’s Council
Liberty’s Council is elected from its membership
and provides guidance on Liberty policy in between
Annual General Meetings. The following members
served on the Council during 2013. Tish Andrewartha
Treasurer
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Howard Beckett
from May 2013
Frances Butler
Chair
Louise Christian
Tom Cleaver
Madeleine Colvin
Vice Chair, until June 2013
Michael Ellman
David Enright
from May 2013
Shaheed Fatima
Alex Gask
until May 2013
Katherine Hardcastle
Liberty’s Executive Committee
Liberty’s Executive Committee is elected by from
Liberty’s Council and is responsible for the strategic
direction, financial and other governance of Liberty.
The following members served on the Executive
Committee during 2013, along with Liberty’s
Treasurer and the Chair of the Civil Liberties Trust.
Tish Andrewartha
Treasurer
The Hon. Susan Baring OBEfrom October 2013
Frances Butler
Chair
Madeline Colvin
Vice-Chair, until June 2013
Fiona Horlick
Martin Howe
Christine Jackson
until October 2013
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE
Kevin McGrath
from June 2013
Sonali Naik
until June 2013
Nick O’Shea
Fiona Horlick
Joanna Shaw
Martin Howe
Vice-Chair from June 2013
Francesca Klug
Peter Kosminsky
until May 2013
Trustees of The Civil Liberties Trust
Sarah Ludford
The Civil Liberties Trust employs no staff but pursues
its charitable objectives principally through providing
grants to support the charitable aspects of Liberty’s
work. The Civil Liberties Trust is managed by the
following Board of Trustees, including the Chair and
Vice Chair of Liberty’s Executive Committee.
Jeannie Mackie
Tish Andrewartha
Nicola Lacey
Nikita Lalwani
Jean Lambert
from May 2013
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE
Michael McColgan
The Hon, Susan Baring OBEChair, from October 2013
Kevin McGrath
Frances Butler
Terry McGuinness
Sonali Naik
until May 2013
Richard Norton-Taylor
Nick O’Shea
Adam Payter
Rod Robertson
until May 2013
Simon Sapper
Joanna Shaw
Vice Chair from June 2013
Madeline Colvin
until June 2013
David Goldstone CBE
Christine Jackson
Chair, until October 2013
Simon Prosser
Treasurer
Joanna Shaw
from June 2013
Baroness Vivien Stern CBE
Dame Vivienne Westwood RDI
Hannah Slarks
Amy Woolfson
from May 2013
Mazin Zeki
26
Liberty is a membership
organisation, each year we host
an AGM with debates, workshops
and key note speeches. Below
is a selection of tweets from
attendees at the 2013 AGM.
Question Time @libertyhq
#LibertyConf2013 MPs showing
strong commitment to Human
Rights! Good stuff!!
“A few committed groups of
people can change world. That is
the reality” #LibertyConf2013
@libertyhq enjoying the
#LibertyConf2013 coverage.
At this time of cynicism it has
never been more important to put
out a positive HR message
Liberty (The National Council for Civil Liberties)
is a company limited by guarantee.
Company registration number: 3260840
The Civil Liberties Trust is a registered charity
and company limited by guarantee.
Charity registration number: 1024948
Company registration number: 2824893
Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust
Liberty House
26–30 Strutton Ground
London
SW1P 2HR
020 7403 3888
facebook.com/libertyhq
twitter.com/libertyhq
Designed by oysterdesign.co.uk
space for FSC logo
Thanks @libertyhq for the most
stimulating day out I’ve had in ages
#LibertyConf2013
#libertyconf2013 comes to
an end. Great to meet so many
wonderful people and hear what
they had to say. Fantastic day!
Inspired by #libertyconf2013.
Long and hard campaign ahead to
save the Human Rights Act, but we
can win it.
Inspiring & emotional day at
#libertyconf2013 @libertyhq.
So many heroic characters.
Fuelled up to defend
#humanrights & #legalaid
Join us from just £2.50 per month.
See www.joinusbeheard.org or
contact our membership team on
membership@liberty-humanrights.org.uk or 020 7378 3663
for further information.

A Year in Review 2013

Transcription

Similar documents

The Liberty™ Multiband Land Mobile Radio, the first multiband LMR

property for sale

OLYMPIC VILLAGE ATHLETE RECREATION OPTIONS

A Second American Revolution Is Now Inevitable,Bilderberg

February - Liberty School District

Give Me Liberty! - Admiral Fence Co. LLC

November Liberty Bell - Burbank School District 111