Clearly, if some of the orders are centred on certain communities, that could be the effect. People could feel that they were being picked on. The important point to note is that it is very difficult to deny that you are a terrorist, if someone else has reasonable suspicion of that. How do you prove you are not a terrorist? A judicial review would look at the process that the Minister went through and whether it had legislative support: it would not look at the justice of the case. Even with rushed legislation, I cannot see why it cannot include some form of appeal process. It would not have to involve the whole court system, as it could be a judge sitting in a room somewhere who looked at the evidence and came to a view.
In the House, we have just been through a process—difficult for many—in which we had Sir Thomas Legg looking at our expenses and then a judge providing an appeal process. In this area, which will involve very difficult issues, I cannot see why a judge could not be appointed to consider the information available from the point of view of natural justice and to come to a speedy decision. Why go through the expense of a judicial review that may not even lead to justice?
Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Robert Syms
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 8 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c682 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:55:02 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624672
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624672
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_624672