Terrorismo e tutela dei diritti fondamentali

Terrorismo e tutela dei diritti
fondamentali
La recente legislazione nel
Regno Unito
Gianluca Atzori
Anno accademico
2006/07
Indice
1. Cronologia
2. Background
3. Prevention of Terrorism Act
4. Terrorism Act
5. Un esempio di Control Order
6. Le restrizioni imposte da un vero Control Order
7. Bibliografia
2
1. Cronologia
Eventi
1998:
Attentati
Legislazione
alle
ambasciate 1998: Human Rights Act (UK), che
americane in Kenya e Tanzania
recepisce la ECHR
2000: Attentato alla nave della marina 2000: Terrorism Act (UK)
americana USS Cole
2001: Attentato alle Torri Gemelle 2001: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security
(USA). Gli USA invadono l’Afghanistan. Act (UK). Patrioct Act (USA)
2003: Gli USA invadono l’Iraq
2004: Attentati alla metropolitana di 2004: La House of Lords dichiara l’ATCSA
Madrid.
illegittimo per contrasto con Human
Rights Act (UK)
2005: A Marzo viene approvato il
Prevention of Terrorism Act, che colma la
lacuna lasciata dal A.T.C.S.A.
2005: A Luglio doppio attentato alla
metropolitana di Londra
2005: Subito dopo gli attentati, il
governo propone un nuovo disegno di
legge, il Terrorism Bill, sostenendo che la
vecchia legislazione non è sufficiente.
2006: Le stime indicano in almeno 2006: A Marzo viene approvato il
15000 i morti dovuti ad attentati Terrorism Act, passato alla storia perché
terroristici
in
Iraq,
dall’inizio
del durante la sua approvazione, per la
conflitto.
prima volta il governo Blair ha subito
una sconfitta dovuta al voto contrario di
una parte dei laburisti.
3
2. Background
Nel 2000 venne approvata una legge permanente per contrastare il terrorismo (Terrorism
Act).
Ciononostante, nel 2001, il governo britannico rispose agli attentati dell’undici Settembre
con l’Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act.
Il punto più controverso di quella legge riguardava il trattamento degli stranieri sospettati
di attività anche solo in senso lato “terroristiche” che:
1. Non potevano essere estradati perchè vi era il pericolo che fossero oggetto di
trattamenti contrari al senso di umanità nei loro Paesi d’origine (in forza dell’art.
3 della European Convention of Human Rights, che il Regno Unito ha ratificato con lo
Human Rights Act del 1998) 1
2. Non potevano essere processati secondo il rito ordinario perché le prove a
disposizione erano insufficienti, o “sconvenienti” (per ragioni di tutela della
segretezza dei servizi segreti) da usare in un procedimento pubblico.
Costoro infatti, potevano essere internati senza regolare processo, con l’unica libertà di
lasciare il Paese (cosa che alcuni detenuti fecero).
Come rilevato da Lord Bingham of Cornhill2, permettendo nella sua parte 4,
l’internamento senza processo, l’Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act violava l’art 5 della
ECHR, il quale garantisce il fondamentale diritto alla libertà personale3. L’eccezione
prevista alla lettera F di tale articolo, in ogni caso non legittima il trattamento subito dai
1
V. Cahal v. United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 413. Questa sentenza è fondamentale per il caso in
questione, perché tratta il caso di un cittadino Indiano, giudicato un “pericolo per la sicurezza nazionale”
dal governo britannico. Poiché fu impossibile il rimpatrio del Cahal, perché contrario all’art. 3 della ECHR
(che vieta l’estradizione verso Paesi, come l’India che praticano trattamenti inumani, quali la pena di morte)
venne imprigionato per anni senza regolare processo. Per la corte la lettera f dell’art 5 della ECHR,
consente la detenzione solo nelle more del procedimento di estradizione, ma nel caso Cahal, tale
procedimento era radicalmente precluso dall’art 3 della stessa Convenzione; pertanto la sua detenzione fu
ritenuta illegittima.
2
House of Lords in A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Respondent) 16/12/2004
3
Art 5 ECHR: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his
liberty save in the following cases, and in accordance with procedure prescribed by law: […]
(f) The lawful arrest or detention of […] a person against whom action is being taken with a view to
deportation
4
ricorrenti, in quanto un individuo può essere provvisoriamente detenuto solo durante il
procedimento di estradizione.
Per questa ragione nonostante il Regno Unito, in seguito agli attentati dell’11 Settembre,
abbia chiesto di poter derogare all’ ECHR per via della situazione di emergenza4 Lord
Cornhill rileva anche che è ancora più palese violazione del principio di non
discriminazione, previsto dall’art 14 della ECHR e in relazione al quale il Regno Unito
non ha chiesto di poter derogare, giacchè ovviamente i cittadini britannici non potevano
essere oggetto di detenzione indefinita senza processo, perché per essi non si presentava
il problema dell’estradizione5.
In seguito alle predette censure, si rese necessaria l’approvazione di un nuovo testo
legislativo, per fronteggiare la “lacuna” venutasi a creare dopo la dichiarazione di
illegittimità dell’ Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act da parte della House of Lord.
Nel 2005 venne quindi proposto, ed, in seguito alla più lunga seduta parlamentare della
pur lunga storia inglese (trenta ore di discussione ininterrotte), approvato il Prevention of
Terrorism Act.
4
House of Lords in A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Respondent) 16/12/2004 pag. 8 a proposito della richiesta di deroga all’ECHR fatta dal Regno Unito:
“The Derogation Order: The derogation related to article 5(1), in reality article 5(1)(f), of the Convention. The
proposed notification by the United Kingdom was set out in a schedule to the Order. The first section of
this, entitled “Public emergency in the United Kingdom”, referred to the attacks of 11 September and to
United Nations Security Council resolutions recognising those attacks as a threat to international peace and
security and requiring all states to take measures to prevent the commission of terrorist attacks, “including
by denying safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist attacks”. It was stated in the
Schedule:
“There exists a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from persons suspected of involvement in
international terrorism. In particular, there are foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom who are
suspected of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international
terrorism, of being members of organisations or groups which are so concerned or of having links with
members of such organisations or groups, and who are a threat to the national security of the United
Kingdom.”
The next section summarised the effect of what was to become the 2001 Act. A brief account was then
given of the power to detain under the Immigration Act 1971 and reference was made to the decision in
Hardial Singh. In a section entitled “Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention” the effect of the Court’s decision in
Chahal was summarised. In the next section it was recognised that the extended power in the new
legislation to detain a person against whom no action was being taken with a view to deportation might be
inconsistent with article 5(1)(f). Hence the need for derogation. Formal notice of derogation was given to
the Secretary General on 18 December 2001. Corresponding steps were taken to derogate from article 9 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which is similar in effect to article 5,
although not (like article 5) incorporated into domestic law.”
5
House of Lords in A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the
Home Department (Respondent) 16/12/2004
5
3. Prevention of Terrorism Act
Proposto in parlamento il 23 Febbraio 2005, venne approvato l’11 Marzo dello stesso
anno. Per avere un’idea della “fretta” con la quale il governo impose l’approvazione di
questo testo, basti pensare che il molto meno controverso International Organisations Act
2005 richiese circa 4 mesi per la sua approvazione.
L’Act venne quindi approvato prima degli attentati terroristici che colpirolo la
metropolitana londinese nel Luglio 2005.
In seguito a tali attentati, in Parlamento venne proposto il Terrorism Bill, un nuovo testo
legislativo contentente misure anti terrorismo, che al momento è ancora in fase di
discussione.
Il Prevention of Terrorism Act, introduce un potente strumento nelle mani dell’Home Secretary:
i Control Orders.
Tali orders possono essere amanati avverso individui sospettati di essere coinvolti in
attività connesse con il terrorismo, indipendentemente dalla loro nazionalità (e quindi
anche qualora siano cittadini britannici). I soggetti passivi degli orders sono detti
“controlee”.
I poteri garantiti dal Prevention of Terrorism Act
L’Act regola due distinti tipi di control orders: derogating ( I più gravi e restrittivi) e nonderogating.
In base alla prima sezione dell’Act, il potere di emanare un non-derogating control order spetta
al ministro dell’interno.
Per emanare un derogating control order (per esempio, una detenzione domiciliare
ventiquattro ore su ventiquattro, sette giorni su sette) il ministro deve rivolgersi ad una
Corte6.
6
"derogating obligation" means an obligation on an individual which(a) is incompatible with his right to liberty under Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention; but
(b) is of a description of obligations which, for the purposes of the designation of a designated derogation,
is set out in the designation order;
6
Le possibili restrizioni imponibili con un control order comprendono7:
•
Divieto di accedere a talune cose o servizi (Interntet, telefoni cellulari)
•
Divieto di frequentare determinate persone, o associarsi a determinati gruppi
•
Restrizioni alla libertà di movimento, sino alla detenzione domiciliare.
•
Coprifuoco
La ragione di una così ampia varietà di restrizioni imponibili sta nel fatto che esse
andrebbero disegnate su misura per il controlee, in modo da garantire la sicurezza
nazionale, con il minimo danno per i diritti dell’individuo.
Le restrizioni che il ministro o la Corte devono imporre sono “quelle necessarie allo
scopo di prevenire il coinvolgimento in attività terroristiche”.
7
(4) Those obligations may include, in particular(a) a prohibition or restriction on his possession or use of specified articles or substances;
(b) a prohibition or restriction on his use of specified services or specified facilities, or on his carrying on
specified activities;
(c) a restriction in respect of his work or other occupation, or in respect of his business;
(d) a restriction on his association or communications with specified persons or with other persons
generally;
(e) a restriction in respect of his place of residence or on the persons to whom he gives access to his place
of residence;
(f) a prohibition on his being at specified places or within a specified area at specified times or on specified
days;
(g) a prohibition or restriction on his movements to, from or within the United Kingdom, a specified part
of the United Kingdom or a specified place or area within the United Kingdom;
(h) a requirement on him to comply with such other prohibitions or restrictions on his movements as may
be imposed, for a period not exceeding 24 hours, by directions given to him in the specified manner, by a
specified person and for the purpose of securing compliance with other obligations imposed by or under
the order;
(i) a requirement on him to surrender his passport, or anything in his possession to which a prohibition or
restriction imposed by the order relates, to a specified person for a period not exceeding the period for
which the order remains in force;
(j) a requirement on him to give access to specified persons to his place of residence or to other premises
to which he has power to grant access;
(k) a requirement on him to allow specified persons to search that place or any such premises for the
purpose of ascertaining whether obligations imposed by or under the order have been, are being or are
about to be contravened;
(l) a requirement on him to allow specified persons, either for that purpose or for the purpose of securing
that the order is complied with, to remove anything found in that place or on any such premises and to
subject it to tests or to retain it for a period not exceeding the period for which the order remains in force;
(m) a requirement on him to allow himself to be photographed;
(n) a requirement on him to co-operate with specified arrangements for enabling his movements,
communications or other activities to be monitored by electronic or other means;
(o) a requirement on him to comply with a demand made in the specified manner to provide information
to a specified person in accordance with the demand;
(p) a requirement on him to report to a specified person at specified times and places.
(5) Power by or under a control order to prohibit or restrict the controlled person's movements includes,
in particular, power to impose a requirement on him to remain at or within a particular place or area
(whether for a particular period or at particular times or generally).
7
Il coinvolgimento in attività terroristiche è definito:
•
La commissione, preparazione, istigazione ad atti terroristici
•
Condotte che agevolino la commissione, preparazione, istigazione ad atti
terroristici
•
Condotte che incoraggino commissione, preparazione, istigazione ad atti
terroristici
•
Condotte che diano supporto o assistenza a coloro che sono coinvolti in attività
terroristiche
La seconda sezione dell’Act indica i requisiti necessari perchè il ministro dell’interno
possa regolarmente emanare un non-derogating control order:
•
Il ministro deve avere un ragionevole “grounds” per sospettare che l’individuo sia
coinvolto in attività connesse al terrorismo.
•
Il ministro deve considerare necessario, per la salvaguardia della pubblica
sicurezza, l’imposizione di determinate restrizioni su tale individuo.
I non-derogating control orders hanno una durata massima di 12 mesi, rinnovabile se il
ministro lo ritiene necessario (sezione 2, par. 6).
Molto interessante è il ruolo rivestito dal potere giudiziario nel procedimento di
emanazione di un non-derogating control order.
La terza sezione dell’atto prevede infatti che il ministr dell’interno debba sottoporre
all’esame della corte il control order che ha intenzione di emanare ma questa lo può
respingere solo se lo ritiene “obviously flawed”, ovverosia manifestamente errato. Ne
discende che i margini per respingere un control order sono molto stretti.
La Corte può respingere l’intero provvedimento, o una sua parte soltanto.
In caso di “emergenza”, il ministro può emanare control orders provvisori, che devono
essere esaminati dalla Corte entro sette giorni dalla loro emanazione.
Viene spontaneo chiedersi come mai è previsto un regime speciale di emergenze, dacchè
di per se l’emanazione di un control order richiederebbe implicitamente uno stato di
pericolo per la sicurezza pubblica tale da giusitificare I particolarissimi e penetranti poteri
garantiti dall’Act.
La Corte giudica i control orders in seduta pubblica o meno. Quando la sicurezza nazionale
8
lo richiede, l’udienza si svolge in forma non pubblica, senza il controlee e, cosa
particolarmente frustrante, senza il suo legale difensore. Le difesa del controlee è assunta da
un “trained and security cleared independent lawyer, described as a Special Advocate”. In pratica, da
un uomo dichiarato “pulito” dai servizi segreti.
Violare il precetto imposto dal control order è un crimine punito con la detenzione sino a
cinque anni, e sanzione pecuniaria senza limite massimo, determinata in ragione della
gravità della violazione.
La settima sezione dell’Act disciplina le modifiche ai control order: i controlee soggetti a nonderogating orders possono richiederne la modifica o la revoca al ministro, e il ministro ha il
dovere di “considerarle”. Per i derogating orders la richiesta va rivolta alla Corte.
L’Act contiene numerosi riferimenti al fatto che, ove le prove lo permettano, i controlee
devono essere sottoposti a regolare giudizio, e il ministro ha il dovere di consultare
periodicamente gli organi di polizia a riguardo.
9
4. Terrorism Act 2006
Sebbene le norme fondamentali della legislazione anti-terrorismo Britannica siano
contenute nel Prevention of Terrorism Act, è importante citare l’ultimo, recentissimo testo
legislativo sulla materia: il Terrorism Act.
Approvato il 30 Marzo 2006, l’Act disciplina nuove fattispecie delittuose in materia di
terrorismo8, e deve la sua incredibile fama mediatici alla norma che prevede l’estensione
del periodo di detenzione senza giudizio, sulla quale il governo Blair fu per la prima volta
battuto in sede parlamentare.
8
Il
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Terrorism
Act
disciplina
i
seguenti
reati:
Encouragement of terrorism (section 1): Prohibits the publishing of "a statement that is likely to
be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or
indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or
instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences." Indirect encouragement statements
include every statement which glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the
future or generally) of such acts or offences; and is a statement from which those members of the
public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as
conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances."[1]. The maximum penalty is
seven years' imprisonment.
Disseminating terrorist publications (Section 2): Prohibits the dissimination of a publication
which is either (a) likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging terrorism, or
(b)includes information which likely to be understood as being useful in the commission or
preparation of an act of terrorism. The maximum penalty is seven years' imprisonment.
Preparation of terrorist acts (Section 5): Prohibits anyone from engaging in any conduct in
preparation for an intended act of terrorism. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
Training for terrorism (Section 6): Prohibits anyone from training others in terrorist activities, or
from receiving training. The maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment.
Attendance at a place used for terrorist training (Section 8): Prohibits anyone from being at a
place where training is going on (whether in the United Kingdom or abroad), provided the person
knew or reasonably believed that it was happening. The maximum penalty is 10 years'
imprisonment.
Making and possession of devices or materials (Section 9): Prohibits the making or possession of
any radioactive device (ie a dirty bomb). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
Misuse of devices or material and misuse and damage of facilities (Section 10): Prohibits using
radioactive materials or a radioactive device in a terrorist attack, and the sabotage of nuclear
facilities which causes a radioactive leak. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
Terrorist threats relating to devices, materials or facilities (Section 11): Prohibits anyone from
making threats to demand that they be given radioactive materials. The maximum penalty is life
imprisonment.
Trespassing etc. on nuclear sites (Section12): Extends a previous ban on trespassing, imposed by
the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, to cover any nuclear site.
The first four offences are also made the subject of extraterritorial jurisdiction, so that they can be tried in
the courts in the United Kingdom even if committed abroad. The Act also extends the maximum length of
imprisonment for 'possession for terrorist purposes' from 10 years to 15 years, and for threatening to
damage a nuclear power station to life imprisonment. The proposal that only those who intended to incite
terror could be prosecuted was defeated by two votes in the House of Commons (300-298) - this was
reported at the time as 300-299, but the clerks of the house confirmed the list of Aye names (of which
there are 298) to be accurate
10
Il testo è suddiviso in tre parti; nella prima vi sono i nuovi reati, la seconda contiene
previsioni di vario tipo (tra cui l’estensione dei termini di carcerazione preventiva), la
terza elenca previsioni supplementari, irrilevanti ai fini di questo lavoro.
Il dibattito parlamentare si è incentrato maggiormente sulla parte seconda.
In particolare, il governo Blair, ha con forza sostenuto l’estensione sino a novanta giorni
dei termini di carcerazione “without charge”, senza ottenere l’assenso della camera.
Il parlamento ha infine optato per una durata massima di ventotto giorni. Per
comprendere come in ogni caso questa sia una disposizione fortemente innovativa per
l’ordinamento inglese, è sufficiente pensare che per reati quali l’omicidio o lo stupro il
termine massimo di carcerazione è di quattro giorni.
Secondo il nuovo schema, ogni sette giorni una corte dovrebbe verificare la sussistenza
dei requisiti necessari per il legittimo permanere della carcerazione.
Tali requisiti, si rifanno sempre alla necessità di terminare le indagini al fine di preservare
la sicurezza nazionale. In una nota, il ministero dell’interno fa ad esempio presente la
seguente ipotesi: in seguito ad una perquisizione, vennero sequestrati dei computer e
contestualmente sottoposti a detenzione dei sospetti terroristi. I files all’interno di quei
computers erano criptati e le forze di polizia non fecero in tempo a decrittarle prima della
scadenza dei termini di detenzione, e cosi fu impossibile interrogare i sospetti a proposito
dei documenti trovati nei loro computers.
La parte seconda inoltre, contiene numerose disposizioni che integrano e ampliano
considerevolmente i poteri di indagine delle forze di polizia.
Vengono incrementate, tra le altre, le possibilità di fermo dei veicoli e di loro ispezione e
di intercettazioni telefoniche e tramite le cd. cimici. Viene emendato l’Intelligence Services
Act, al fine di “modernizzare” e rendere “congrui” i poteri dei servizi.
11
5. Un esempio di control order
EXAMPLE CONTROL ORDER PROFORMA
(Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, section 2)
CONTROL ORDER
This Order is effective from: [date]
Name of Controlled Person: [name]
Date of Birth: [date of birth]
Nationality: [nationality]
Place of Residence: [address]
Under the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by sections 2 and 3(1)(a) of the
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (referred to below as ‘the Act’), this Order has been
made against you because:
(a) he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that you are or you have been involved in
terrorism-related activity; and
(b) he considers it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the
public from a risk of terrorism, to impose certain obligations upon you in order to
prevent or restrict your further involvement in terrorism-related activity.
The basis for this decision is:
[reason]
The obligations imposed on you under section 1(3) of the Act are set out in the Schedule
to the Order – see attached. You are required to meet the obligations set out in the
Schedule to the Order. By virtue of section 9(1) and (2) of the Act if, without
reasonable excuse, you contravene any of these obligations, you shall be liable on
conviction to a term of imprisonment or to a fine or to both.
If while you are subject to this Order, you consider there has been a change of
circumstances affecting it, you may apply under section 7(1) of the Act, for a revocation
of the Order or for the modification of an obligation imposed by the Order.
This Order is effective until the end of [day / month / year] (Order made for 12
months).
The Secretary of State applied to the court for permission to make this order and has
been granted that permission on [insert date].
Secretary of State
12
6. Esempio di restrizioni imposte con un control order
SCHEDULE OF OBLIGATIONS
The following obligations form part of the Control Order and are imposed on you by
virtue of section 1(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005:
Upon service of the control order and thereafter for the duration of this control order:
(1) You shall permit yourself to be fitted with and shall thereafter at all times wear an
electronic monitoring tag (“the tag”).
(2) You shall remain or permit yourself to be taken and thereafter reside at [address]
(“the residence”), and shall remain in the residence at all times save for a period of 6
hours between 10am and 4pm or as specified in the directions given in writing referred
to at
(8) below. “Residence”, in the case of a flat, encompasses only that flat and, in particular,
does not include any communal area either inside or outside to which any person not
within the residence would have unrestricted access. “Residence”, in the case of a house,
encompasses only the house and does not include any outside space associated with it.
(3) Each day, you must report to the monitoring company (as identified in the Notes to
the Order) by telephone on the first occasion you leave the residence after a curfew
period has ended and on the last occasion you return to it before a curfew period begins.
(4) You shall not permit any person to enter the residence, save for:
(a) your nominated legal representative as notified to the Home Office;
(b) in an emergency, members of the emergency services or healthcare or social work
professionals;
(c) any person required to be given access under the tenancy agreement for the residence,
a copy of which shall be supplied to the Home Office.
You shall not permit any other individual to enter the residence except with the prior
agreement of the Home Office. In relation to those other individuals, you must supply
the name, address, date of birth and photographic identity of the individual. The prior
agreement of the Home Office shall not be required for subsequent visits by an agreed
13
individual, but this does not prevent the Home Office withdrawing that agreement at any
time.
(5) You shall not, outside of the residence:
(a) meet any person by prior arrangement, other than:
(i) that person referred to in (4)(a) above, or
(ii) for health or welfare purposes at an establishment on a list provided to and
agreed by the Home Office before your first visit; or
(b) attend any pre-arranged meetings or gatherings (other than attending, but not leading,
group prayers at a mosque), save with the prior agreement of the Home Office. For the
avoidance of doubt, a meeting shall be deemed to take place outside of the residence if
one or more parties to it are outside of the residence.
(6) You shall not associate or communicate, directly or indirectly at any time or in any
way with the following individuals
[names]
(7) You must permit entry to police officers and persons authorised by the Secretary of
State or by the monitoring company, on production of identification, at any time to
verify your presence at the residence and/or to ensure that you can comply and are
complying with the obligations imposed by this control order. Such monitoring may
include but is not limited to:
(a) a search of the residence;
(b) removal of any item;
(c) inspection/modification or removal for inspection/modification of any article to
ensure that it does not breach the obligations imposed by this control order;
(d) permitting the installation of such equipment as may be considered necessary to
ensure compliance with the obligations imposed by this control order;
(e) the taking of your photograph.
(8) In order to secure compliance with the obligations imposed by the control order, you
shall comply with such other prohibitions or restrictions on your movement as may be
required by directions given in writing at the time of service of the control order by a
police officer or other person authorised by the Secretary of State. Such prohibitions or
14
restrictions shall cease to be effective 24 hours after service of the giving of the
directions, or an earlier direction.
(9) You shall not:(a) bring or permit into the residence, or
(b) use, or keep (whether in or outside the residence, whether directly or indirectly) any
communications equipment or equipment capable of connecting to the Internet or
components thereof (including but not limited to mobile telephones, fax machines,
pagers, computers, public telephone and/or internet facilities).
Furthermore, you may maintain and use no more than one fixed telephone line in the
residence (other than the dedicated line maintained by the monitoring company).
The telephone must on request be delivered up to a person authorised by the Secretary
of State for inspection and approval prior to it being permitted into or to remain in the
residence.
It shall not be a breach of this obligation to permit any person specified in (4)(a) to (c)
above to bring into the residence a mobile phone, provided that any such mobile phone
shall remain switched off at all times whilst you are in the residence.
For the avoidance of doubt:
(i) you may not use or keep, nor may you permit whilst you are in the residence any other
person to use, any mobile phone in the residence; and
(ii) you may not connect to or use by any means, directly or indirectly, the internet at any
time.
(10) You shall only attend one mosque of your choosing, subject to prior approval from
the Home Office before your first visit.
(11) You may not at any time leave the area marked on the attached map at Annex A (the
width of the line itself is within the permitted area) without the consent of the Home
Office. This area is bordered by [area]
(12) You must notify the Home Office of any intended departure from the UK and
notify it of the port of embarkation. You must also notify the Home Office if and when
you intend to return to the UK and to report to the Home Office immediately upon
arrival that you are or were subject to this control order. The requirement to report on
15
arrival shall continue to apply whether or not this control order remains in force at the
time of your return to the UK.
(13) You shall not maintain more than one account. Such account must be held with a
bank or other approved financial institution within the UK. The following information
must be provided to a person authorised by the Secretary of State:
(a) details of all accounts held at the time of service of this control order, within 2 days of
such service;
(b) closing statements relating to any accounts additional to the one permitted account,
within 14 days of service of this control order;
(c) if no account is held at the time of service of this control order but one is opened
subsequently, details of that account, within 2 days of its opening;
(d) statements of the permitted account on a monthly basis, to be provided within 7 days
of their receipt.
(14) You shall not transfer any money, or send any documents or goods to a destination
outside the UK (whether yourself or through an intermediary) without the prior
agreement of the Home Office.
(15) Within 24 hours of service of this order, you must:
(a) surrender any passport, identity card or any other travel document (other than any
genuine passport issued by the [other nationality] authorities) to a police officer or
person authorised by the Secretary of State, and
(b) notify the Home Office of any [other nationality] passport you have in your
possession or which is available for your use.
Furthermore, prior notification must be given to the Home Office before you may apply
for or have in your possession any passport, identity card, travel document(s) or travel
ticket which would enable you to travel outside the UK.
(16) You are prohibited from entering or being present at any of the following:
(a) any airport or sea port; or
(b) any part of a railway station that provides access to an international rail service
without prior permission from the Home Office.
16
7. Bibliografia
Testi legislativi:
•
Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
•
European Convention of Human Rights
•
Human Rights Act 1998
•
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
•
Terrorism Act 2000
•
Terrorism Act 2006
Links:
•
BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
•
Home Office: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
•
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
•
The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/global/
•
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
•
Wikipedia (Terrorism Act): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006
Opinions, Speech, Essays:
•
Carlile, Lord of Berriew Q.C. “First Report of The Independent Reviewer
Pursuant to Section 14(3) of The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005” Jan 2006
•
Clarke, Charles (Secretary of State for Home Department) “First Annual Review
of the Operation of The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005” 26 apr 2006
•
House of Lords in A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for
the Home Department (Respondent) 16/12/2004
•
Ratbone, Mark, assesses the Labour Government’s record on civil liberties “Civil
Liberties Under Labour” Talking Politics, sept. 2006
•
Woolf, Lord (Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales) “The rule of Law and a
Change in the Constitution”, Squire Centenary Lecture, Cambridge University, 3
Mar 2004
17