'BNP and animal rights activists face house arrest'

• New security measures may see detention without trial - albeit at home

• Announcement brings mass criticism of 'major threat to British civil liberties'

• Move is latest response to threat of terror in UK

Key quote

"There are serious human rights concerns about the new measures and their extension to every British national." - Doug Jewell, Liberty spokesman

Story in full

CONTROVERSIAL new laws to tackle international terrorism could be used to put British National Party members and animal rights activists under house arrest without criminal trial, a government adviser said yesterday.

Speaking after the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, announced new laws to control the movements of terrorist suspects, Mr Clarke’s adviser, Stephen McCabe, told The Scotsman he saw this extending to other groups suspected of using violence to further their ends.

The Labour MP said: "We can envisage this applying to animal rights extremists and the far-Right, for example.

"These people are locked up because we believe they are a genuine danger based on what we think is pretty reliable evidence, even if it cannot be divulged in a court of law."

Mr Clarke announced new anti-terror measures which can be invoked on the basis of secret intelligence without a full open trial yesterday and made it clear that British suspects would be included.

The measures include restrictions such as house arrest, curfews and electronic tagging, a ban on telephone and internet use and restrictions on who they can speak to.

Foreigners currently held under the anti-terror laws introduced by David Blunkett, Mr Clarke’s predecessor, could also face deportation if their governments pledge not to torture or execute them.

MPs and civil rights groups lined up to denounce the new laws as draconian and a major threat to British civil liberties.

The Law Society accused the Home Secretary of an "abuse of power".

Mr Clarke made his announcement in response to criticism from Law Lords that the indefinite imprisonment of foreign nationals in London’s Belmarsh prison without trial breached human rights.

Mr Clarke made clear that the reforms were essential for dealing with terror suspects who could not be deported or tried.

He told MPs he was "very much aware" that the proposals amounted to a "very substantial increase in the executive powers of state in relation to British citizens who we fear are preparing terrorist activities and against whom we cannot proceed in open court".

He admitted this would be contentious, but it was justified when compared to the threat posed.

"I think I should be applauded for accepting the Law Lords’ judgment and working on this basis," he said later in a television interview.

But many MPs were not in an applauding mood. Douglas Hogg, a former Tory minister and senior lawyer, said it was "deplorable" that detainees are held indefinitely without a full trial.

Edward Garnier, another Tory MP, said Mr Clarke’s plans are so outrageous they may be overturned in courts as they offend human rights legislation.

"The Home Secretary ought surely to make his application to the courts rather than to allow his ministerial edict be reviewed after the event by the courts," he warned.

Bob Marshall-Andrews, a Labour MP and QC, strongly opposed the fact that "the executive can lock you up in your own home on their own terms. That seems to me to be entirely contrary to the British constitution as it has been for 300 years".

It was pointless to "make bad legislation applicable to more people".

Jeremy Corbyn, a Labour rebel, said his fellow MPs are "very, very concerned" about the general trend of anti-terrorist legislation and said Belmarsh was "frankly, the equivalent of Guantanamo Bay".

Edward Nally, Law Society president, said: "The government has said that prosecuting suspects is their preferred option. It should be the only option when individuals face losing their liberty."

Liberty, the human rights group, said the Home Secretary has more power than at any time since powers of internment were active in the Second World War.

"There are serious human rights concerns about the new measures and their extension to every British national," said Doug Jewell, a Liberty spokesman.

Suspects should be put on trial rather than face strict control orders which required a very low standard of proof, he added.

Ian Macdonald, a QC who resigned last month from a panel of barristers in disgust at the measures, said: "They are really using detention laws which have been declared unlawful.

"At the end of the day if you’re going to keep people in some sort of house arrest or in prison, you really have to take account of what I think is a fundamental principle, that people are presumed innocent.

"If they’re really dangerous they should be charged under criminal law."