Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust · The Civil Liberties Trust The Civil Liberties Trust is a...

Liberty and The Civil Liberties TrustA Year in Review 2013

1

LibertyFounded in 1934, Liberty is a membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK.

Our missionLiberty protects civil liberties and promotes human rights. We believe in the values of individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness.

How we workLiberty works through a combination of public campaigning, test case litigation, parliamentary campaigning, policy analysis and the provision of free advice and information.

How we are fundedLiberty receives valuable funding from a combination of membership subscriptions, donations, legacies, grants and the support of The Civil Liberties Trust.

The Civil Liberties TrustThe Civil Liberties Trust is a registered charity (registration number 1024948). The charity advances human rights through funding the charitable activities of Liberty. This report reflects the work and success of Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust.

Who we are

Freedom can be fleeting and equality hard to secure in ever-shifting day-to-day difficulties. But on this ground we stand or fall together – our rights are only as strong as they are universal.

1

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Who we are


Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Liberty’s year in numbers

Liberty’s public campaigning

Liberty ran 8 major campaigns

Liberty launched 2 new campaigns

Liberty posted 93 blogs

Liberty produced over 30 press releases

and 20 comment pieces

Liberty sent almost 500,000 emails to members

and supporters

Liberty took part in more than 80 talks at schools, universities,

events and conferences

Liberty’s year in numbers

Liberty in parliamentLiberty produced

46 briefings for MPs and Peers, 13 expert evidence papers,

and 9 responses to statutory consultations

Liberty was mentioned 130 times in parliamentary debate

2

Liberty’s reachLiberty’s press releases and

blogs were viewed over 28,000 times online

Media outlets mentioned Liberty 4,341 times in local and national media, including print,

online, TV and radio

Liberty’s spokespeople participated in 142 broadcast

media appearances

Media outlets approached Liberty over 2,500 times for

expert advice and opinion

2,514 people contacted their MP with Liberty’s support

Over 3,000 campaign documents were downloaded

from Liberty’s website

Liberty reached more than 512,000 people through

Facebook

More than 17,000 people followed Liberty’s updates

on twitter

Liberty’s legal activitiesMore than 3,600

pieces of free advice and information were provided

via Liberty’s Adviceline, www.yourrights.org.uk

and in writing

Liberty represented more than 40 clients challenging abuses of human rights and

civil liberties

Liberty made 14 expert third party interventions

Liberty brought 5 judicial reviews

Liberty participated in 9 cases and interventions

in the European Court of Human Rights


3Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Liberty’s Impact

We are coming to a pivotal moment for rights and freedoms in the UK: legal aid slashed, due process and the Rule of Law undermined, and the Human Rights Act under threat. Universal rights will be embraced and embedded to everyone’s benefit, or they’ll be sheared back in favour of exceptionalism to everyone’s harm. Freedom can be fleeting and equality hard to secure in ever-shifting day-to-day difficulties. But on this ground we stand or fall together – our rights are only as strong as they are universal.

So I hope Liberty’s successes serve as an inspiration and renew your energy to continue the fight against the erosion of our precious and hard-won rights. One of our most high profile interventions was in the area of surveillance. We saw a significant victory early in the year, with proposals to monitor our online communications dropped after concerted campaigning – only to be shocked, if not entirely surprised, by the staggering revelations of Edward Snowden. It’s going to be a long journey

Liberty’s impact in 2013By Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty

to change the law to protect our privacy, but our two legal challenges (pages 9–10) are an important step along the way.

Faced with this momentous task, we are heartened by success in other areas we have long campaigned on. We helped remove the word ‘insulting’ from Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which had led to some absurd restrictions on free speech (page 7). We are challenging discriminatory stop-and-search and unregulated undercover policing (page 12), and we continue in our opposition to ‘Schedule 7’– the power to hold people at airports for hours, intrusively search them and their computers, all without suspicion (page 18).

We’re also fighting for justice in some shocking cases of state failure to protect people. We’ve made positive progress with our legal cases regarding the suspicious deaths of three young people in the military and have called for an overhaul of how complaints of abuse are handled (page 11), and we helped a woman who was held as a domestic slave and subjected to horrific abuse, only to be failed by the police who refused to act (page 7).

These examples and more serve to demonstrate the value of the Human Rights Act to us all. But we’re still up against a daily barrage of misinformation, which is why our mythbusting and education work is more essential than ever (pages 5–6).

Liberty matters because human rights matter – and there are unintended consequences that come with unchecked power. I’m heartened that, despite an often toxic and misleading political debate about human rights, more and more people I meet are waking up to the indisputable value of their rights and freedoms. The popularity of our anti-’Go Home’ van stunt (page 14) showed that many reject the xenophobic policies pouring from the Home Office.

So as we enter our 80th year, what I ask of you is this: join us and be heard.

Welcome to our review of 2013, where you can read about some of the work of Liberty, the oldest human rights group in the country.

4Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | About Liberty

The proud role of a Liberty memberBy Frances Butler, Chair of Liberty

The support of The Civil Liberties TrustBy The Hon Susan Baring OBE, Chair of The Civil Liberties Trust

As I reflect on what Liberty has achieved in 2013 I am reminded of why I am so proud to be a member and so honoured to serve as Chair. In the face of continuing incursions into rights and freedoms it is Liberty who has set the agenda and held the powerful to account over nearly eight decades. I give huge thanks to the professional team who campaign so effectively on our behalf through expert policy positions, strategic litigation, public campaigns and the media. But we couldn’t do it without our members. It is Liberty members who get the campaigning messages out across the country, who provide the credibility that legitimises our work and who provide the financial support that is essential for our survival. I thank you wholeheartedly for supporting Liberty’s vital work. I also urge everyone

who is inspired by this Review to join us too because Liberty will always, as E M Forster urged, “champion the liberties of the people in the fight that is never done.”

I am honoured to be the new Chair of The Civil Liberties Trust, a charitable entity set up in the 1960s to support what was then the National Council for Civil Liberties, now Liberty.

I became a Trustee in 2009 and had the good fortune to serve under our inspired Chair Christine Jackson. Christine joined the National Council as a young, energetic volunteer in the 60s and worked for the organisation throughout her life. She served on the Board and then as Chair of the Trust. It was under her dedicated Chairmanship that we were able to raise the money to move from our cramped premises in Southwark to our present modern and efficient home in Westminster in 2011. She fought like a tiger both for Liberty and for many years against cancer, finally dying last year. We all remember her with love and the greatest admiration.

The Trust has been proud to support Liberty’s awareness raising and legal work in 2013, and to be able to continue to meet threats to our human rights and civil liberties we have set up a new supporter group called Guardians of Liberty. Please do see the Liberty website or contact the office for more information.

Plans for 2014


In 2014 Liberty’s work remains broad in scope but some priority areas will include:

• Defending the Human Rights Act and the universal framework of human rights

• Tackling the unlawful and unregulated surveillance of electronic communications

• Resisting toxic immigration policies and the stripping away of rights from foreign nationals

• Campaigning for better protection for military personnel who complain of abuse

• 2014 will be Liberty’s 80th year and we will be using it to raise awareness and recruit more members. Please see www.liberty80.org for more information.

5Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Common Values

Common ValuesLiberty’s Common Values campaign strives to protect the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the international framework guaranteeing universal rights, freedoms and equal treatment.

The Human Rights Act 1998 places a legal obligation on public authorities to act in accordance with the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act has been instrumental in integrating human rights considerations into decision making at all levels. Sadly, the Act is much maligned and misunderstood and suffers from almost constant misinformed attacks.

Improving understanding of human rightsLiberty continued to strive to improve understanding of human rights, producing 17 press releases and 42 blogs throughout the year promoting positive human rights stories and challenging threats and inaccurate myths. We sought to highlight otherwise

Human rights myth busting Case study: Paul Houston Paul Houston’s daughter Amy was killed in a hit and run. The driver was a foreign national and repeat offender; Paul campaigned for him to be deported. The driver remained in the UK and Paul was led to believe that the Human Rights Act (HRA) was responsible for blocking deportation. The case was frequently cited by the media as a justification for ‘scrapping’ the HRA. During 2013 Liberty helped to reveal the truth behind the myth.

Liberty first met Paul when he had been ‘pitted against’ our Director of Policy in a television debate about the HRA. Following the encounter, Paul asked Liberty for help to discover if the HRA truly was responsible for the driver who killed his daughter remaining in the UK. Liberty’s legal team investigated and discovered that in actual fact the Home Office had simply never tried to deport the driver on the grounds that his presence was not conducive to the public good – all they had done was seek his administrative

removal, an important distinction which had meant that the Court had not properly examined the full extent of his repeated criminal offending. If it had done so, it is very likely that he would have been deported because his offending would have probably outweighed the human rights considerations. The Court of Appeal was extremely critical of the Home Office’s handling of the case. We complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman which also recorded an admission by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) that they had not been completely frank with Paul over the Home Office’s handling of the case. We showed that the real reason the driver remained in the UK was through failings and inefficiency in the immigration system.

Liberty helped Paul to publicise the findings in an article in The Guardian in April ‘The memory of my daughter Amy Houston has been dishonoured; my daughter’s death was used to undermine the Human Rights Act, I now see how wrong that was’.

little-reported instances where the Act had a positive influence, including gaining justice for 17-year-olds who were held in police custody as adults, people who died in a fire in a negligently maintained block of flats and soldiers who died on duty whist being inadequately protected. We also took out a press advertisement celebrating International Human Rights Day on 10 December (see opposite), specifically challenging the Home Secretary’s promise to ‘scrap’ the HRA.

www.ilovehumanrights.com

6


Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Common Values

Human rights education Improving education around human rights is a key focus of the Common Values campaign and so we were dismayed when the Department for Education released a consultation on a new school curriculum that omitted any reference to teaching human rights. Liberty responded to the consultation, stressing the importance of teaching children about human rights values and the UK’s historic involvement in the development of the human rights framework. If we want our youngsters to leave school as responsible citizens, teaching them about our proud human rights framework and the ideals which underpin it is essential. We were delighted in June when we received a response praising our submission and confirming human rights education had been reinstated into the national curriculum.

As part of celebrating International Human Rights Day and the 60th birthday of the European Convention, we distributed copies of Liberty’s Human Rights Resource Pack to 4,923 secondary schools in England, Scotland and Wales. The resource pack is also available online or by writing to Liberty.

The international framework of human rights The relationship with the European Convention and European Court of Human Rights is crucial to the protection of rights and freedoms in the UK, but it is something that is dangerously misunderstood. In 2013 this came to prominence in the renewed debate over prisoners’ voting rights; the UK blanket ban on prisoners voting was ruled incompatible with the Convention in the European Court of Human Rights case Hirst v UK in 2005. Debate raged with some taking the opportunity to inaccurately argue that the UK should pull out of the Convention to preserve parliamentary sovereignty. Liberty was pleased when the Government finally broke the stalemate and brought forward the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, introducing limited voting rights. We submitted evidence to the Committee scrutinising the draft bill, urging them to keep in mind the implications of non-compliance with the judgments of an international court, both for the UK’s reputation around the world and our commitment to the Rule of Law at home. Our submission was directly referenced during parliamentary debate and, gratifyingly, the Committee’s resulting report in December 2013 recommended that the ban on prisoner voting be lifted and that Government bring forward legislation in the 2014/15 parliamentary session.

Improving the application of human rightsAs well as promoting the Human Rights Act, we seek to ensure that the Act is adequately enforced and the rights and freedoms of people in the UK are respected.

The right to life and the right to freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (Articles 2 and 3) Liberty is challenging the Government’s use of force policy, which governs the way private security staff can use force during deportation by aircraft. We saw the tragic failings of this policy in the 2013 inquest into the death of Jimmy Mubenga who was found to have been ‘unlawfully killed’ by guards during his attempted deportation. Liberty challenged the use of force policy in court, arguing that one of the permitted procedures, ‘control and restraint’, (which was used against Mr Mubenga, forcing his head between his knees until he suffocated) was so dangerous that it breached Articles 2 and 3. Sadly, the court decided that although the failings in the policy were significant and needed to be addressed, they did not render the policy non-compliant with Articles 2 and 3. However, the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal and the new hearing will be in June 2014.

(continued on next page)

Liberty’s press advertisement celebrating International Human Rights Day

7


Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Common Values

WHAT’S

NEXT?

• Writers at Liberty In December 2013, Liberty launched an exciting new initiative called Writers at Liberty, a loose coalition of writers on hand to assist us in our role to raise awareness, communicate and persuade when it comes to pressing human rights and civil liberties issues in the UK. In February 2014, 80 authors from the Writers at Liberty group helped to raise awareness of human rights in conjunction with Liberty’s 80th anniversary.

• In 2014 Liberty will respond to the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission, urging the Commission to remember human rights as a positive and enduring legacy of countries around the world addressing the horrors of the Second World War.

• Liberty will continue to respond to attacks on the Human Rights Act in the run up to the general election, particularly in light of Conservative proposals to bring forward a Draft British Bill of Rights, which may seek to undermine the universality of our human rights framework.

The right to freedom from forced labour (Article 4) During 2013, Liberty supported a woman who had been trafficked to the UK from India, held as a domestic slave and subjected to horrific abuse. Our client twice tried to flee but found no help from the police who, in a tragic failure of responsibility, returned her to the house of her abusers. Our client finally escaped successfully but again found little help from the police who decided not to prosecute her abusers. Liberty took her case and successfully challenged the police’s decision; criminal proceedings were brought against six people and in April 2013 three were found guilty of serious abuse including ABH, rape and threats to kill. We continued to support our client in a civil claim against Hertfordshire Police for failing to help, in breach of their duty under Article 4. The police settled the case, including awarding compensation and issuing a full apology.

The right to freedom of expression (Article 10)Liberty has long campaigned against Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which criminalised ‘insulting’ speech and behaviour. We argued the legislation was too broad and subjective and had been used to limit free speech. We produced parliamentary briefings in

support of an amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill to remove the word ‘insulting’ from Section 5 and we were delighted when the amendment passed. We continue to campaign for the full repeal of the overly broad Section 5 and an equivalent provision in the Communications Act, which has similarly broad restrictions on freedom of expression online.

8


Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Protecting the fundamental right to privacy

Liberty has had considerable success protecting the fundamental right to privacy in recent years, including defeating ID Cards and successfully lobbying for the destruction of innocent people’s DNA records. However, many challenges remain.

The bedroom taxIn March Liberty announced we would be seeking judicial review of the Government’s controversial ‘bedroom tax’ policy, because of its damaging impact on families with separated parents. The judicial review is on behalf of three parents who share the care of their children. In each case the other parent is deemed to be the primary carer, so the children’s rooms in our clients’ houses are treated as unoccupied and our clients’ housing benefits will be reduced. Our clients cannot afford to pay the shortfall in their rent and if they move to smaller properties they are unlikely to maintain substantial residential contact with their children. We argue the ‘bedroom tax’ is incompatible with Article 8.

Balancing privacy and freedom of expressionLiberty’s Director was tasked with this as a member of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into media ethics during 2012. Despite being largely in favour of the resulting report, we are unsatisfied with the Royal Charters proposed as a means of press regulation. Our submission to the consultation on the Royal Charter stressed that, as a model more tied to the government than any Act of Parliament, a Royal Charter is constitutionally inappropriate, undemocratic, opaque and in no way fit for purpose. We will continue to campaign for a more effective way to balance privacy and freedom of expression.

More positively, our submission to the parliamentary debates of the Defamation Bill received recognition in the House of Lords. We called for protection for organisations genuinely and seriously disadvantaged through inaccurate reporting to pursue a claim in defamation, whilst reducing the potential for deep-pocketed corporations to stifle free speech. We were satisfied when our proposals were reflected in the final Defamation Act.

The role of Article 8 in the immigration sphereIn 2013 there were more calls and moves to further restrict the application of Article 8 for foreign nationals or families of foreign nationals in the UK.

Early in 2013, Liberty took the opportunity to challenge these moves in a response to the All Party Group on Migration’s Inquiry into the new Family Migration Rules. Our response condemned two recent developments: the recently implemented minimum income requirement for a foreign spouse wishing to join their partner in the UK and the new immigration rules which narrow judicial discretion to prevent removal of a foreign nationals on Article 8 grounds. The resulting report was highly critical of the impact of the changes on genuine families and in July the High Court suspended the minimum income requirement on the grounds that it breached Article 8, as we predicted.

In April, during the late stages of the Crime and Courts Bill, a backbench amendment (supported by over 100 cross-party MPs) was tabled which proposed to oust the jurisdiction of the courts to prevent deportation of a foreign national subject to the automatic deportation regime on the basis of Article 8. We sent a briefing to MPs urging them to vote against the inclusion of the amendment but ultimately time ran out to debate the amendment. A similar unsuccessful attempt was made in early 2014.

Protecting the fundamental right to a private and family life (Article 8)

WHAT’S

NEXT?

• We are seriously concerned over the repeated attempts to limit the role of Article 8 in the immigration sphere. The Immigration Bill introduced in 2013 will put a number of restrictive immigration rules into primary legislation and the Home Secretary has indicated further legislation in this area. We will continue to oppose these moves, through parliamentary briefings on the Immigration Bill and by utilising all other necessary campaigning methods.


9Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Protecting the fundamental right to privacy

In 2013 the Edward Snowden leaks revealed a system of online surveillance that equated to a breach of trust on the grandest scale.

Throughout 2012, Liberty led the multi-disciplinary campaign No Snoopers’ Charter against plans to introduce mass capture and storage of electronic communications data. In April 2013, in a landmark victory for Liberty, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the plans had been dropped. However, mere days later, documents leaked by NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden revealed that the organisations that had failed to make the case for the so-called snoopers’ charter were in fact already conducting breathtaking levels of online surveillance.

Liberty was quick to react: Liberty’s Director expressed condemnation of blanket, unregulated surveillance in interviews on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, BBC News, Sky News and ITV News, while other spokespeople gave interviews to Radio 4’s PM programme together with various regional broadcast stations. Liberty’s response was also included in news stories across the print and online media from the Daily Mail to The Guardian, The Telegraph, the Daily Mirror and beyond.

We drew on our international partners to address the multi-national significance of the allegations. We issued a joint statement with human rights organisations from across the world highlighting

Challenging a breach of trust on the grandest scale

Liberty’s ‘In Private I...’ public photo stunt

concerns over potential breaches of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and other international laws that require that states provide legal protections to guarantee against interference or attacks on individual privacy. The statement was published in The Guardian newspaper.

In the Liberty summer newsletter, we launched a photo stunt ‘In Private I…’. This allowed members and supporters to contribute to the campaign, addressing the oft-quoted ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ argument by sharing something they do in private. Members and supporters responded well, see above.

In November we welcomed the opportunity for clarity over the security service’s activities when chiefs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ participated in a public evidence session with the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). Liberty representatives eagerly attended the sessions but were sadly let down by the proceedings. Very little, if any, new information entered the public domain and the witnesses used the opportunity to make unsubstantiated claims about the impact of the Snowden leaks on national security.

Utilising our experience and legal capacity, we took the lead in challenging the British Intelligence Services directly in two legal actions: First, we lodged an application with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) asking them to investigate the allegations that British Intelligence Services have used

10


Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Protecting the fundamental right to privacy

Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, accepting Liberty’s Independent Voice of

the Year Award, November 2013

In November, we honoured The Guardian’s role in unveiling this scandalous violation of personal dignity with the Independent Voice of the Year award at the annual Human Rights Awards. In his acceptance speech, Alan Rusbridger spoke about the vital role played by Edward Snowden and the importance of the revelations:

When our reporter met Edward Snowden, the question he kept asking himself was what could a 29-year-old possibly be revealing that would make him with his eyes wide open risk spending the rest of his life in jail. Over the last five months, we’ve got some sense of what this young man saw that so disturbed him. And it’s this: that leading intelligence agencies in the US and the UK decided to embark on a quite staggering mission to collect and store everything we

do digitally, all the time. The cosy word for what they scoop up is ‘meta-data’, which either sounds technical, or harmless, or both, but meta-data is actually capable of revealing the complete patterns of our lives, our relationships, our health, our friends, our location, our intention, our movements, our Google searches, our addictions, our financial affairs, our religious or political associations.

So this decision to scoop up and store everything about us was done without any meaningful debate or public consent – quite the opposite. It’s not clear how much the people who are supposed to be in oversight of these systems either understood them or were told about them or whether what they were told was the truth. So, that was what was worrying Edward Snowden – that we were unknowingly sleepwalking into a society where the infrastructure

of total surveillance was being built behind our backs without any discussion or wide public knowledge.

What is perfectly plain from the Snowden material is that policemen don’t need to knock on your front door with a request of a warrant any longer. They are inside your lives already.

PRISM and/or Tempora to bypass the formal UK legal process which regulates access to personal material.

Secondly, we lodged a further application with the IPT on behalf of an international coalition of six human rights groups. The coalition believe it is likely that the British Intelligence Services used Tempora to monitor private communications – either being sent to, received from, transferred via or processed in the UK. We argue this interference is a breach of Article 8 (the right to respect for their private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that there is no clear legal framework that permits collection and storage of such vast quantities of communications.

WHAT’S

NEXT?

• Liberty’s legal actions against the British Intelligence Services are due to be heard by the IPT in July 2014.

• We will continue to use every opportunity to lobby for reform of our out-dated surveillance laws both in Parliament and beyond. This includes forming the Don’t Spy on Us coalition with Open Rights Group, Privacy International, Big Brother Watch, English Pen, Article 19 and others.

• Following the March 2014 announcement of the Intelligence and Security Committee Inquiry into the scandal, to which we have submitted evidence, we are pressing for a truly independent public inquiry into the revelations and the legal framework governing surveillance in the UK.

11

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/military-justice

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Military Justice

Military Justice campaigns to protect and uphold the human rights of those serving in the British Armed Forces; we believe that the rights of service men and women are just as deserving of protection as civilians.

In 2012, Liberty began work on three legal cases involving suspicious deaths of young people serving in the armed forces, which alerted us to serious deficiencies in human rights protection.

Anne-Marie Ellement was serving in the Royal Military Police when she took her own life. Her family believe that her experience in the military, including allegedly being raped and bullied by her colleagues, contributed to her suicide. The initial inquest into Anne-Marie’s death failed to investigate these concerns and left her family with many serious questions over what had happened to their beloved daughter and sister.

Cheryl James was a young recruit at Deepcut army training barracks who died shortly after starting basic training over fifteen years ago. The inquest into her death was cursory and failed to address any of the principal concerns about how a happy young woman could suddenly be found dead one morning while on guard duty. Liberty forced the authorities to hand over all the papers concerning the death and have, on the basis of the new information uncovered, lodged an application for a fresh inquest to the Attorney General. The new evidence includes new forensic evidence and the fact that witnesses admitted to having lied on oath.

Sean Benton, another young recruit at Deepcut barracks died in 1995, of gunshot wounds. Sean’s family have never been given access to the materials about his death and this process is ongoing. His case raises serious concerns about army bullying and it is hoped that an application for a fresh inquest will follow.

Under the Human Rights Act, there is a duty to fully investigate all serious crimes and deaths. However, our legal investigations uncovered a system where investigations are not made and there is nowhere for people to turn.

Accordingly in 2013, we launched Military Justice making three simple demands:• Sexual assault allegations by military personnel

be automatically referred for investigation by the Service Police and Director of Service Prosecutions

• That all service police forces should be subject to independent oversight

• An Independent Armed Services Ombudsman be created with the power to review cases and make recommendations

Information about the campaign is available on our website where members and supporters can also Email their MP to show their support for the campaign. The campaign so far has received significant support from Madeline Moon MP and has been featured a number of times in national media including Channel 4 News and Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour.

Military Justice

WHAT’S

NEXT?

• Liberty was successful in securing a fresh inquest into Anne-Marie Ellement’s death which reported in February 2014. The Coroner found that the mental effects of the alleged rape, the workplace bullying Anne-Marie suffered and her ‘work related despair’ were all contributing factors to her suicide. In addition, the Coroner made a number of recommendations. He will write to the Armed Forces Minister about ‘blue on blue’ (military) sexual violence and has called for better training to be provided on the assessment of soldiers vulnerable to suicide. A fresh criminal investigation into Anne-Marie’s allegation of rape will now take place.

• We have obtained access to all materials held by the authorities concerning Cheryl James and an application for a fresh inquest has been lodged with the Attorney General. The process of disclosure of materials in relation to Sean Benton is also underway.

12

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/lawrence-amendment

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Promoting proportionate policing

Disproportionate policing, overbroad regulations and scandalous abuse of police powers threaten our human rights and civil liberties; Liberty campaigns for proportionate and targeted policing which respects individuals and communities.

The shameful abuse of undercover policingDuring 2012, scandals including undercover police officers pursuing sexual relationships with their surveillance targets caused Liberty to call for greater judicial oversight of covert policing operations. The campaign was bolstered in June 2013 when deeply disturbing claims were made that undercover operatives had infiltrated the grieving family of Stephen Lawrence in order to obtain evidence to discredit the family.

We seized the opportunity to demand an overhaul of the dangerously unregulated system of CHIS (Covert Human Intelligence Sources). We drafted an amendment to the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill (ASBCP Bill), which would mean all long term operations would require prior judicial authorisation, thus ensuring effective, independent oversight. Doreen Lawrence publicly supported our so-called Lawrence Amendment and over 250 members and supporters wrote to their MP urging them to support the

amendment. The Labour front bench tabled a similar amendment which was narrowly defeated in Parliament. We’ll continue to build parliamentary support for prior judicial authorisation for undercover operations.

Improving regulation of stop and search powersPolice powers of stop and search are far too broad and evidence shows they are used disproportionately and discriminatively. Having long campaigned against dangerous stop and search powers, we were gratified to secure a Home Office consultation in June 2013. Liberty responded to the consultation, calling for the repeal of powers to stop and search without suspicion in favour of more targeted powers, increased training for police officers and greater monitoring and accountability.

We also supported victims of unfair and discriminatory stop and search; achieving justice and

highlighting the evidence for the need for reform. These included the case of a 12-year-old black autistic boy who was stopped and searched by the police. He was not given any record of the search and was very shaken by the experience. Following Liberty’s threat of legal action, the police agreed to pay damages to our client. We continue to support our client and his mother in making an official complaint to the police; she is hoping to improve the way the police deal with autistic people.

Promoting proportionate policing

WHAT’S

NEXT?

• We are very concerned over proposals to make water cannons available to police forces in the UK. We will continue to campaign against the use of such a brutal and militaristic approach.

• We will campaign for a replacement body to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) with the credibility and independence to rigorously investigate complaints against the police.

A warm welcome: ‘Go Home’The UK Government has introduced a number of schemes which will make you feel not at all welcome. First, they dispatched vans to ethnically diverse areas of London carrying the slogan ‘In the UK illegally? Go Home or face arrest’. These were accompanied by immigration ‘spot checks’, which had questionable legal basis. Secondly, they drew up a sloppy list of suspected illegal immigrants and sent text

messages to them asking them to leave the country. The target list included anti-racism campaigners and immigration advisers. The initiatives did little more than fuel fear and intimidate communities.

Finding somewhere to liveUnder new proposals, you will have to prove your immigration status to all potential landlords, bank managers and a host of other community-based organisations. These unfair obligations have the potential to punish non-specialists, who have no formal training in the

Welcome! A host of initiatives were launched during 2013 which will make it significantly harder for you to become part of the community, be successful and live happily in the UK!

complex immigration landscape and will not make it easy for you to secure accommodation, participate in the community or make new friends.

What to do when you’re illNew proposals will introduce financial charges for certain groups of immigrants to access healthcare. These will place the health of you and the wider public at risk and undermine relationships you have with trusted professionals when you are at your most vulnerable.

The futureThe Government have dreamt up a complex, bureaucratic nightmare known as the Immigration Bill which could make all proposals on healthcare charging and landlord checks a grim reality for you, at the same time as removing protections designed to ensure that the Home Office get decisions right.

Liberty’s guide to

Coming to the UK

The Government’s ‘Go-Home’ van

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Liberty’s guide to coming to the UK13

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/immigration-bill

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/immigration-bill

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | The irresponsible and unworkable Immigration Bill

Liberty does not want to see this dystopian travel guide become a reality. We do not oppose fair immigration rules, proportionately enforced, but that doesn’t require polarising publicity stunts that poison race relations. The truth is that successive Ministers, in fraught attempts to look tough and compete with UKIP, have preferred headline-grabbing gimmicks and endless reams of new legislation to the rather dull task of tackling delays and inefficiency.

Liberty challenged the disgraceful immigration initiatives throughout 2013. In response to the ill-targeted ‘Go Home Van’ Liberty took to the streets in a van of our own carrying our opposition statement ‘Stirring up tension and division in the UK illegally? Home Office, think again’. The anti-‘Go Home’ van drove round Westminster and targeted areas of London and was featured heavily on our social media platforms, where it generated more than 1,000 retweets and around 100 new followers on Twitter. Liberty’s Policy Officer who accompanied the van also appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme, BBC News, Sky News, BBC London, ITV London Tonight and ITV Daybreak amongst others and the van was mentioned in national newspapers including The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express, together with hundreds of online and regional titles.

Ultimately the Government’s ‘Go Home’ initiative proved to be a failure but the Immigration Bill remains a seriously damaging piece of legislation. Rather than knuckling down

We must stop this becoming a realityand trying to fix a system blighted by inefficiency and error, inexplicably it seems the Home Office’s answer to existing delays and incompetence is a regime of even greater dysfunction and complexity. Liberty submitted critical briefings at both the Second Reading and Committee Stage of the Immigration Bill in the House of Commons and provided expert evidence to the bill’s committee. Our arguments were mentioned a hugely influential 19 times in parliamentary debate of the bill during these two stages alone.

WHAT’S

NEXT?

• We will continue to oppose the scheme which would require landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. At the very least these proposals should be piloted; this will reveal just how unworkable and potentially discriminatory they are like to be.

• We will continue to oppose provisions of the Immigration Bill which would provide for a dangerous extension of the powers of Immigration Officials to use ‘reasonable force’ and which would provide for those carrying out immigration spot-checks to take biometric information from those they stop.

Liberty’s anti-’Go Home’ van

14

15Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Defending the Rule of Law

Defending access to justice, due process and the Rule of LawThe Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The most important application of the Rule of Law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. Fundamental to democracy, the Rule of Law must be defended.

For Their Eyes OnlyDuring 2012 Liberty launched the large scale campaign For Their Eyes Only against proposals to extend the practice of Closed Material Procedures into some areas of the civil law. The campaign continued into the first quarter of 2013; we produced numerous parliamentary briefings, hosted meetings, spoke directly to parliamentarians and produced well-supported petitions. Liberty’s arguments were

referenced directly five times in parliamentary debate and were mentioned hundreds of times in the media.

The hard fought campaign suffered a blow with the passing of the Justice and Security Act 2013, after successive battles including a vote lost by just 16 votes in the House of Lords. Whilst this was hugely disappointing, we mustn’t forget the mountain of opposition we built, which the Government ignored in forcing the Bill through. Lawyers, the international community, the Scottish Government, the national press and hordes of Liberal Democrat supporters joined us in rejecting the legislation. Liberty members also challenged the proposals determinedly, with over 1,000 people contacting their MP and we salute their dedicated campaigning.

The fight is not over. The first opportunity to continue the campaign came with the introduction of amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, designed to implement the proposals. We produced a briefing for Peers stressing the profoundly unjust nature of Closed Material Procedures, which was again referenced in parliamentary debate.


Liberty’s Legal Director James Welch speaking at a Justice Alliance rally


16Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Defending the Rule of Law

We challenged the Government’s creep towards secret courts in the courts themselves. In 2013, Bank Mellat v HM Treasury was heard in the Supreme Court. The case concerned a financial restrictions order made under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008; the Government requested the Supreme Court see some evidence in a closed session. Liberty intervened arguing it was an unnecessary infringement on the Rule of Law. Although the Court did agree to see some evidence in secret, ultimately the Judges were very critical of the Government’s insistence, for which they saw no basis.

Loss of access to justice through the decimation of legal aid and judicial reviewAlongside the roll out of the devastating changes made by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which removed legal aid from vast swathes of civil legal challenge, further announcements were made in 2013 which would establish even greater barriers to people seeking justice through the courts.

Proposals would remove legal aid from whole sections of the public, including vulnerable communities such as prisoners and immigrants with less than 12 months’ residency. In addition, legal aid funding for judicial review cases would be slashed. Finally the ability of third parties to bring their expertise to bear in judicial review claims would be undermined. The cumulative result would be to insulate the state from scrutiny; decisions in relation to unpopular, minority and poor communities particularly would be dangerously free from challenge.

From May 2013 onwards, Liberty joined a coalition of NGOs, unions, legal practitioners and community groups called the Justice Alliance to call on the Government to halt the decimation of access to justice. We took part in demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament, the Royal Courts of Justice and the Old Bailey. We were also active in high profile media, shedding light on the impact of proposals and countering arguments about ‘fat-cat lawyers’ and ‘unmeritorious cases’, including a live appearance on ITV Daybreak and a comment piece for The Times.

Liberty formally opposed changes to legal aid and judicial review in three written responses to the Ministry of Justice’s successive consultations stressing firstly the discriminatory nature of the proposals and secondly the inherent danger in severely curtailing options for Government accountability. We argued in favour of the critical role judicial review plays in our constitutional settlement and highlighted the vital

part it has played in securing redress for some of the most vulnerable people. Without the availability of legal aid and judicial review, the Gurkha veterans might never have achieved justice and Liberty’s support of Anne-Marie Ellement’s family would never have got off the ground. We repeated our arguments to the Joint Committee on Human Rights during its consideration of reforms affecting access to justice.

The failure of Police and Crime Commissioners? Throughout 2013, we highlighted the ongoing manifestations of the concerns we had over the introduction of elected Police and Crime Commissioners. We particularly noted our concerns over their influence in the commissioning of services for victims of crime, where popular vote-winning policies often contradict the greatest need. In November we welcomed the Labour-sponsored Independent Commission on Policing Report, which strongly reflected Liberty’s oral and written evidence, recommending among other things that the Police and Crime Commissioner scheme be scrapped.

WHAT’S

NEXT?

• Legal aid and judicial review We are saddened that a number of proposals from the consultations, including plans to remove prison law from the scope of legal aid, have now materialized as statutory instruments or have been included in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. We are preparing to challenge these in parliamentary briefings and further joint working.

Liberty’s Director campaigning for an end to cuts to legal aid

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/extradition-watch

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Fighting the worst excesses of counter-terrorism policy

Extradition was a key area of counter-terrorism policy; fast track extradition agreements were made which denied basic justice to individuals subject to extradition orders.

During 2012, a number of welcome developments were announced, particularly the introduction of the long campaigned for ‘forum bar’, where a UK judge has the power to block extradition in the interests of justice. Sadly, when the forum bar was formally introduced in the Crime and Courts Bill, it became clear that the shortcomings of the test in effect provided very little safeguard against unfair extradition. In a hugely disappointing move, further proposals were included in the same bill to remove another safeguard - the Home Secretary’s power to block extradition on human rights grounds.

Liberty issued briefings on the Crime and Courts Bill for MPs and Peers calling for a wholesale rejection of the proposals. Although Liberty’s briefings were directly referenced in parliamentary debates, the bill contained a vast array of proposals and substantive debate on the extradition developments was limited.

The Crime and Courts Act passed in May 2013 and not only contained a forum bar test that is skewed towards extradition and heavily fetters judicial discretion, it also removed the discretion to block extradition on human rights grounds, leaving those subject to deportation orders with precious few safeguards.

In a further blow, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (ASBCP Bill) introduced later in 2013 included proposals to remove the automatic right of appeal in some extradition cases. We opposed this in written evidence to the bill’s committee in the summer, arguing the right is vital to allow people to put their case to the High Court, to present up-to-date evidence and challenge the reasoning of the initial order.

Fighting the worst excesses of counter-terrorism policyAlthough the War on Terror is no longer in our headlines, many concerns over counter-terrorism policies remain.

17

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/schedule-7

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides for broad and intrusive powers of questioning and detention with ancillary search powers, all of which can be exercised without suspicion by a wide range of officials at ports and boarders. A 2012 review of these counter-terrorism powers was welcomed by Liberty but in 2013 we responded to the limited proposals for reform in the resulting report by stressing our fundamental opposition to stop and search without suspicion and its discriminatory application. We reiterated our opposition when the report formed part of the ASBCP Bill.

When Schedule 7 was used to detain and search David Miranda, the partner of the journalist working with NSA whilst-blower Edward Snowden (see pages 9-10), we went on the offensive. We condemned the inappropriate use of counter-terrorism powers on BBC2’s Newsnight, Radio 4’s Today programme, a comment piece in the Daily Mirror and mentions in hundreds of print and online media outlets.

On the basis of the Miranda scandal, we drafted an additional briefing to the ASBCP Bill urging MPs to utilise the bill to repeal Schedule 7. We also created a new online resource setting out our arguments to members and supporters. Alongside our campaign work, we also utilised our legal expertise to intervene in support of David Miranda in his challenge to Schedule 7.

We also continued our own legal challenge on behalf of our client who was likewise detained at Heathrow under Schedule 7. Our client was detained for over four hours on his way home from Saudi Arabia; he was interrogated about his salary and voting habits, his possessions were searched and his mobile phone and credit cards were taken. We are supporting his challenge against Schedule 7 in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing it is incompatible with Articles 5 (the right to liberty) and 8 (the right to privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

WHAT’S

NEXT?

• We were dismayed when the High Court found the detention of David Miranda was lawful under Schedule 7. We intend to continue our intervention should the case be appealed and to argue that if such a barefaced abuse of power is lawful then the law must change.

• We are awaiting the opportunity to intervene in a European Court of Human Rights case in which two men allege that UK authorities were complicit in their torture in Pakistan, including knowing that one of the men had their fingernails pulled out. The case is currently adjourned on the Government’s application pending the outcome of civil proceedings in the UK.

There were, however, some positive developments in the bill, including provision for a bar on extradition within Europe where a charging decision has not yet been made and new judicial discretion to bar extradition within Europe on proportionality grounds.

As well as working in parliament, we continue to seek justice for individuals subject to unfair extradition orders. Our client Eileen Clark is subject to extradition proceedings to the USA, charged with international parent kidnapping having fled her abusive husband with her three young children in the mid-1990s. At the time, Eileen travelled to the UK legally and lived here without challenge; the children are all now at university. We applied for Eileen’s extradition to be blocked on human rights grounds. Our application included evidence that she was the victim of serious and sustained domestic abuse forcing her to flee.

Regrettably, the Home Secretary twice rejected our application. In a very hard and extremely disappointing decision, she recommended domestic violence be used as a defence in the USA but could not be used to block extradition. In a final attempt to secure justice, we have issued judicial review proceedings of the decision and await a ruling from the court.

Final call for Schedule 7

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Fighting the worst excesses of counter-terrorism policy18

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Protecting freedom and fairness for all19


Protecting freedom and fairness for allAs the leading domestic expert in human rights and civil liberties, Liberty seeks to provide advice and guidance as widely as possible, protecting freedom and fairness for all.

Equal marriageLiberty was thrilled with the introduction of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in 2013. We fully supported the permissive regime that would allow those faiths that wished to conduct same-sex marriages to do so, whilst allowing other faiths to remain opposed, which we had specifically advocated for.

The one area where we continued to campaign for change was the unresolved inequality in the regulation of occupational pension schemes. This had been brought to our attention by a legal client who was challenging his pension scheme for refusing to pay the same survivor’s pension to his civil partner that they would have paid to his widow had he been married. The pension scheme had separate provisions for same sex couples, based on the date of the Civil Partnership Act. Although within legal limits, the provisions were extremely unfair, leaving same-sex partners thousands of pounds worse off than their heterosexual colleagues.

We drafted an amendment to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill which would outlaw such discriminatory provisions. The amendment was tabled by Kate Green MP, Shadow Minister for Equalities, in the House of Commons and by Lord Ali in the House of Lords. Concurrently, we publicised our campaign for equal pensions in online adverts and raised the issue with trade unions, securing supportive statements from five of the biggest: UNISON, CWU, TUC, GMB and PCS. In total, Liberty’s input was referenced an incredibly significant 17 times in parliamentary debate on the bill.

Overjoyed at the passing of the Act and legalising of equal marriage, we were disappointed our equal pensions amendment was not included in full. However, we were pleased the Government was at least persuaded to make provision for a review of pensions regulations.

The dangerous Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) We have significant concerns that the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) established in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 give insufficient protection to people with limited or fluctuating capacity. We also believe there is evidence that the safeguards, insufficient as they are, are not being properly applied in practice.

Following a letter we sent to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in September 2012 and a meeting with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in January 2013, where we encouraged an inquiry into the operation of DoLS, we were delighted when a Post-Legislative Inquiry into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was announced in the House of Lords. Liberty provided oral and written evidence, drawing on our experience of supporting a number of residents of the notorious Winterbourne View hospital, who had been subjected to incredibly distressing abuse by staff employed to care for them.

Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Protecting freedom and fairness for all20


WHAT’S

NEXT?

• Equal pensions The Government agreed to review our amendment within 12 months and we are preparing to campaign again. In the meantime we continued to highlight the inequality and drafted a suggested amendment to the Pensions Bill, which was tabled by Dr Caroline Lucas MP.

• DoLS The report from the House of Lords inquiry in 2014 confirmed many of Liberty’s fears that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had failed and the safeguards had been used to take away people’s rights. We will now campaign forcefully for new legislation and an independent body to review decisions to detain people of limited or fluctuating capacity.

Gagging Bill Proposals to widen the scope of regulation of campaigning organisations in the year preceding a general election were included in Part 2 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, leading to the bill quickly becoming known as the ‘Gagging Bill’. Liberty joined forces with 38 Degrees and other third sector experts to raise serious concerns over the effect the gagging bill would have on open and informed debate and accountability. We secured a number of amendments to the bill including increasing the amount organisations are allowed to spend on campaigning and removing spending on AGMs from the scope of proposals. However, there remains much uncertainty and huge concern over the potential to silence incredibly valuable debate in the run up to the general election 2015. This could mean that bad policy by-passes expert scrutiny and amendment to become bad law.

The fall of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)Liberty has long campaigned against ASBOs, which dangerously blur the divide between civil and criminal law and in 2013 we welcomed the announcement that ASBOs were to be replaced. However, disappointingly, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (ASBCP Bill) proposed replacement sanctions that covered even wider categories and that would be easier to impose. Liberty produced four parliamentary briefings setting out detailed analysis and advising the proposed powers were too wide, the definitions too broad and the burden of proof too low. Particularly, we opposed Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance or Annoyance Orders (IPNAs), which sought to penalise subjective and broadly defined ‘nuisance’, and Public Space Protection Orders, which allowed for blanket restrictions to be imposed on entire communities. We were delighted when the sloppy and dangerously broad definitions used for IPNAs were narrowed.


Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Celebrating Human Rights Heroes21

Inspirational human rights heroes from all walks of life were again rewarded for their dedication at Liberty’s annual Human Rights Awards.

Among the winners were Caroline Criado-Perez, who was named Campaigner of the Year for leading the campaign calling for the reinstating of a prominent female figure on the reverse of the UK’s currency. Susan Smith, Colin Redpath, Karla Ellis and Courtney Ellis won the Far from Home Award for their determined fight for justice for their loved ones, all killed in Snatch Land Rover vehicles in Iraq – leaving a legacy of Human Rights Act protection for all service personnel. And Paul Houston took the Close to Home Award for his courageous defence of rights and freedoms in response to a toxic campaign that

Honouring human rights heroes

used his daughter Amy’s death to undermine the Human Rights Act. Celeste Dandeker-Arnold, OBE was honoured with the Arts Award in association with the Southbank Centre for her work with the UK’s first integrated dance company featuring disabled and able-bodied dancers. Stephanie Harrison QC gave an impassioned speech on receiving the award for Lawyer of the Year for her prowess as an advocate for human rights and commitment to progressing the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers and contesting oppressive anti-terrorism measures.

Meanwhile, The Guardian was honoured with the Independent Voice of the Year accolade for its ethical journalism in exposing the truth about blanket electronic surveillance by US and UK intelligence services. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, collected the award. Jinan Younis received the

Christine Jackson Young Person Award for showing enormous dignity and courage in overcoming hostile resistance both from within and outside her school community to set up a feminist society at her all-girls’ school. The Holocaust Educational Trust was given the Collective Voice Award for providing education, training and outreach programmes to combat anti-Semitism, racism and prejudice in schools, colleges and the community over the last 25 years. And race relations campaigner Doreen Lawrence received a standing ovation as she accepted the Lifetime Achievement Award for her dedicated fight to reform policing and national values following the murder of her son, Stephen.

We really have to recognise that the Human Rights Convention is a critical safeguard below which we cannot allow people in this country to fall. If we don’t stand up to defend it we are going to lose it…that’s an obligation for everybody here. Stephanie Harrison QC, Liberty’s Lawyer of the Year(l–r) Katherine Grainger CBE,

Lord Kerr, Stephanie Harrison QC and Sandi Toksvig

Doreen Lawrence and Lance Sergeant Johnson Beharry VC


Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Thank you

For speaking at our AGM and members’ conferenceMadeleine ColvinDinah Crystal OBECory DoctorowIan DuntRt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MPSharon HardyGus HoseinFiona HorlickMartin HoweRt. Hon. Simon Hughes MPMarina HydeJim KillockJoanna LumleySonali NaikRobert SharpCarol StorerKhristina SwainEmily Thornberry MP

For taking part in our party conference fringe eventsDiane Abbott MPYasmin Alibhai-BrownRt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MPRichard Howitt MEPRt. Hon. Simon Hughes MPDr Julian Huppert MPPeter KellnerRt Hon Sadiq Khan MPBaroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBEKevin MaguireThe Rt. Hon. the Lord McNally Peter OborneAmanda Platell

For supporting our legal workAllen & Overy LLPClifford Chance LLPFreshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLPHerbert Smith Freehills LLPNorton Rose Fulbright LLPReed Smith LLP

For supporting our Human Rights AwardsLance Sergeant Johnson Beharry VCRory BremnerBenedict CumberbatchKatherine Grainger CBERt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MPBarbara HanniganRt. Hon. Simon Hughes MP Jude Kelly OBEThe Rt. Hon. the Lord Kerr of TonaghmoreDr Caroline Lucas MPJoanna Lumley OBE FRGSMary McCartneyDavid MorleyFrances O’GradyEmeli SandéSouthbank CentreSandi ToksvigChuka Umunna MP

For supporting our campaigning workBen CooperLord Jones of Birmingham KTJanis Sharp

Thank youLiberty and The Civil Liberties Truest would like to thank the following people and organisations

For providing essential fundingAllen & OveryEsmee Fairbairn FoundationFreshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLPHerbert Smith Freehills LLPJ Paul Getty Jr Charitable TrustJolanta and Max Neufeld Charitable TrustJoseph Rowntree Charitable TrustMactaggart Third FundOak FoundationOpen Society FoundationsReed FoundationReed Smith LLPThe 1970 TrustThe Big GiveThe Eleanor Rathbone Charitable TrustThe Eva Reckitt Trust FundThe Orp FoundationThe Philamonic TrustThe Phyllis & Ben Charitable TrustThe Portrack Charitable Trust The Sigrid Rausing TrustThe Street FoundationTrust for London

We would also like to thank all our members, individual donors, volunteers and those who remembered us in their will.


22


23Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Finances

Income and expenditurefor the year ended 31 December 2013

The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty)

2013 2012 £ £

Income Grants, donations and legacies 1,524,655 1,256,130 Membership subscriptions 512,669 502,448 Legal and other earned income 153,041 77,872 Interest receivable 8,667 12,150 Total income 2,199,032 1,848,600

Expenditure Legal and advice work 412,275 366,659 Membership and fundraising 348,152 325,085 Campaigns 432,144 407,168 Policy 287,957 270,337 Media 272,112 235,143 Governance 33,602 37,319 Total expenditure 1,786,242 1,641,711

Balance sheet as at 31 December 2013 Fixed assets 91,711 42,360 Current assets 1,614,891 1,177,518 Deferred grant income (185,417) (141,667) Other creditors (99,682) (69,498) Net assets 1,421,503 1,008,713

Restricted funds 84,879 38,162 Unrestricted funds General fund 1,244,913 928,191 Designated funds 91,711 42,360 Total funds 1,421,503 1,008,713

Statement from the Board of The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty) The summarised accounts above have been extracted from the full annual financial statements of The National Council for Civil Liberties prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 2006, which were approved by the Board on 25th March 2014. The full annual financial statements have been audited and the auditors’ opinion was unqualified. They are to be submitted to the Register of Companies. For further information the full statements, the auditors’ report on the financial statements and the Board’s annual report should be consulted. Copies of these may be obtained from the Secretary at Liberty House, 26–30 Strutton Ground, London SW1P 2HR.



1% Interest receivable

7% Legal and other earned income

23% Membership subscriptions

69% Grants, donations and legacies

15% MediaPromoting Liberty’s campaigns using press releases, blogs, comment pieces and broadcast appearances, achieving over 3,000 media mentions.

16% PolicyProviding expert analysis and advice across a wide spectrum of human rights and civil liberties laws, regulations and proposals.23%

LegalProviding specialist advice, information and representation to individuals challenging infringements of human rights and civil liberties.

20% Membership and fundraisingIncreasing support for Liberty’s campaigns and keeping members well informed resulting in a combined income of £2 million to Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust (see overleaf).

2% Governance

24% CampaignsPromoting Liberty’s campaigns to the public using Liberty’s website, campaign literature, email Facebook, Twitter and public stunts.

2013 Income £2,199,032

2013 Expenditure £1,786,242



Income and expenditurefor the year ended 31 December 2013

The Civil Liberties Trust

2013 2012 £ £

Income Voluntary income including legacies 468,909 558,707 Investment income - bank interest 2,578 5,298 Incoming resources from charitable activities 153,769 155,242 Total income 625,256 719,247

Expenditure Costs of generating funds 3,499 3,649 Grants payable to Liberty 651,895 514,666 Other charitable expenditure 64,264 69,218 Total expenditure 719,658 587,533

Balance sheet as at 31 December 2013 Fixed asset – freehold property 2,541,918 2,597,152 Current assets 509,678 507,507 Creditors (85,451) (44,112) Net assets 2,966,145 3,060,547

Unrestricted funds General fund 424,227 463,395 Designated funds 2,541,918 2,597,152 Total funds 2,966,145 3,060,547

Note The summarised accounts above have been extracted from the unaudited financial statements of The Civil Liberties Trust. The full audited statutory report and accounts will be available from the Charity at Liberty House, 26–30 Strutton Ground, London SW1P 2HR after they have been approved, which is scheduled for the Board meeting on 13th May 2014.


26Liberty and Civil Liberties Trust Year in Review 2013 | Governance

GovernanceLiberty’s CouncilLiberty’s Council is elected from its membership and provides guidance on Liberty policy in between Annual General Meetings. The following members served on the Council during 2013.

Tish Andrewartha TreasurerCamila Batmanghelidjh Howard Beckett from May 2013Frances Butler ChairLouise Christian Tom Cleaver Madeleine Colvin Vice Chair, until June 2013Michael Ellman David Enright from May 2013Shaheed Fatima Alex Gask until May 2013Katherine Hardcastle Fiona Horlick Martin Howe Francesca Klug Peter Kosminsky until May 2013Nicola Lacey Nikita Lalwani Jean Lambert from May 2013Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBESarah Ludford Jeannie Mackie Michael McColgan Kevin McGrath Terry McGuinness Sonali Naik until May 2013Richard Norton-Taylor Nick O’Shea Adam Payter Rod Robertson until May 2013Simon Sapper Joanna Shaw Vice Chair from June 2013Hannah Slarks Amy Woolfson from May 2013Mazin Zeki

Liberty’s Executive CommitteeLiberty’s Executive Committee is elected by from Liberty’s Council and is responsible for the strategic direction, financial and other governance of Liberty. The following members served on the Executive Committee during 2013, along with Liberty’s Treasurer and the Chair of the Civil Liberties Trust.

Tish Andrewartha TreasurerThe Hon. Susan Baring OBE from October 2013Frances Butler ChairMadeline Colvin Vice-Chair, until June 2013Fiona HorlickMartin HoweChristine Jackson until October 2013Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBEKevin McGrath from June 2013Sonali Naik until June 2013Nick O’SheaJoanna Shaw Vice-Chair from June 2013

Trustees of The Civil Liberties TrustThe Civil Liberties Trust employs no staff but pursues its charitable objectives principally through providing grants to support the charitable aspects of Liberty’s work. The Civil Liberties Trust is managed by the following Board of Trustees, including the Chair and Vice Chair of Liberty’s Executive Committee.

Tish AndrewarthaThe Hon, Susan Baring OBE Chair, from October 2013Frances ButlerMadeline Colvin until June 2013David Goldstone CBE Christine Jackson Chair, until October 2013Simon Prosser TreasurerJoanna Shaw from June 2013Baroness Vivien Stern CBEDame Vivienne Westwood RDI

Liberty (The National Council for Civil Liberties) is a company limited by guarantee. Company registration number: 3260840

The Civil Liberties Trust is a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. Charity registration number: 1024948 Company registration number: 2824893

Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust Liberty House 26–30 Strutton Ground London SW1P 2HR

020 7403 3888 www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk facebook.com/libertyhq twitter.com/libertyhq

Designed by oysterdesign.co.uk

Liberty is a membership organisation, each year we host an AGM with debates, workshops

and key note speeches. Below is a selection of tweets from attendees at the 2013 AGM.

Question Time @libertyhq #LibertyConf2013 MPs showing

strong commitment to Human Rights! Good stuff!!

“A few committed groups of people can change world. That is the reality” #LibertyConf2013

@libertyhq enjoying the #LibertyConf2013 coverage. At this time of cynicism it has

never been more important to put out a positive HR message

Thanks @libertyhq for the most stimulating day out I’ve had in ages

#LibertyConf2013

#libertyconf2013 comes to an end. Great to meet so many

wonderful people and hear what they had to say. Fantastic day!

Inspired by #libertyconf2013. Long and hard campaign ahead to save the Human Rights Act, but we

can win it.

Inspiring & emotional day at #libertyconf2013 @libertyhq.

So many heroic characters. Fuelled up to defend

#humanrights & #legalaid

Join us from just £2.50 per month. See www.joinusbeheard.org or contact our membership team on [email protected] or 020 7378 3663

for further information.

space for FSC logo

Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust · The Civil Liberties Trust The Civil Liberties Trust is a...

Documents

Transcript of Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust · The Civil Liberties Trust The Civil Liberties Trust is a...