Hi, need to submit a 2000 words essay on the topic In an age of heightened threats to national security, it should be open to the Government to detain suspected terrorists for an indefinite period of time withou.
However, the blurring of the distinction between the need to legislate for immigration on the one hand and protection from terrorism on the other is further perpetuated by the patchwork of piecemeal immigration legislation in the UK. On the other side of the legal spectrum, the implementation of the Human Rights Act in 1998 (HRA) enshrines the fundamental rights and freedoms of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
From an immigration policy perspective, the most important rights relied on in immigration cases have been the Article 5 right, which prohibits detention without trial and the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment under Article 3. Additionally, Article 14 guarantees rights under the ECHR.
However, on the other side of the spectrum it has been submitted that the heightened threat to national security necessarily renders it permissible for Governments to detain suspects for an indefinite period of time without charge or trial. Conversely, it has been argued that whilst sufficient measures for national security protection are vital, absolute executive autonomy over detention of suspects without trial or charge clearly raises constitutional issues and human rights issues.
Indeed on the one hand, the fundamental freedoms under Article 5 of the ECHR in respect of detention are essential to the function of the UK as a democracy. On the other hand, the reliance on the ECHR rights through the HRA 1998 arguably undermines immigration rules and legislation, which enables the UK immigration system to be exploited vis-à-vis asylum seekers in international conventions1. However, it is precisely this paradox within the law that enables the changing Governmental policy from circumventing both entrenched immigration and asylum rules and human rights protection on grounds of “national security”2. This is particularly evidenced by the implementation of the controversial Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ACTSA),