Peer joins row over threats to judges on anti-terror measures

Published on 15/08/2005 01:47

MINISTERS threatening to force judges to interpret legislation in a way that would allow the deportation of Islamic extremists were rebuked yesterday by the peer appointed to review anti-terror measures.

Lord Falconer, the constitutional affairs secretary, warned that a new law could be introduced to amend the Human Rights Act to take account of "national security" if judges blocked deportations. The remark was interpreted as an attempt by politicians to interfere with the judiciary.

Lord Carlile, a Liberal Democrat peer appointed to review the response to terror said: "Trying to persuade judges through legal provisions to consider national security is actually teaching your grandmother to suck eggs."

The row broke out as it emerged that nine terror suspects accused of helping to fund al-Qaeda while they sought asylum in Scotland could be deported to Algeria.

Yesterday, Lord Carlile insisted that national security was always a consideration of judges, but they rightly also protected human rights.

The tough anti-terror approach adopted by the British government could lead to the expulsion of nine Algerians in Scotland.

The men were arrested twice in Edinburgh, but charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence. Attempts to deport the men failed because of the Human Rights Act, which bans the deportation of suspects if they are likely to face torture at home.