I have prosecuted terrorists and know human rights laws make us

safer
Keir Starmer

The prime ministers kneejerk proposal to rip up laws to fight the growing terrorist threat
is a dangerous distraction

There is nothing quite like working on a counter-terrorism case in real time. When I was director of
public prosecutions, from 2008 to 2013, I had a first-rate counter-terrorism team, who worked
closely with the police and the security and intelligence services to defeat and disrupt terrorism.

I saw for myself the sheer dedication and expertise of all involved in the cause of keeping the
public safe. As a result, many plots have thankfully been thwarted (including at least 13 since
2013) and many lives saved.

But as we have seen with tragic consequences in the past three months, three terrible attacks
have got through, with horrific results in London and Manchester. The threat posed by terrorism is
growing and evolving.

In light of this, whoever wins the general election will have to review Britains current security
arrangements and look at what further support we can give to our security and intelligence
services and to the police. We have to do so with raw honesty about the problems we are facing
and without reaching kneejerk conclusions.

Theresa Mays comments that human rights laws may need to be changed to counter the terrorist
threat simply do not address the real problems we are facing. Instead, they are a dangerous
distraction, designed to deflect attention from the serious questions that have been asked about
the cuts she has made to police numbers (20,000 officers, including 1,300 armed officers) and
resources in her seven years as home secretary and prime minister. As the mayor of London has
said, cuts to police budgets in the capital have become unsustainable and must be addressed.
These concerns are mirrored in police forces across the country.

In my five years as DPP I saw many cases involving serious terrorist plots. Not once did human
rights laws prevent the Crown Prosecution Service from pursuing a prosecution, or our dedicated
counter-terrorist teams from monitoring and apprehending suspects.

From my experience both as DPP and previously as a human rights lawyer, I know that human
rights and effective protection from terrorism are not incompatible. On the contrary, they go hand
in hand.

So when I decided in 2009 that three men subsequently convicted of plotting to bring down planes
in the mid-Atlantic should be retried a second time (an exceptional course), no human rights
challenge could get off the ground. In many other cases, including the trial of those responsible for
the attempted bombings in London on 21 July 2005, the fact that suspects pre-trial rights had
been observed (including in one case in Italy), knocked out any possibility of a challenge to the
prosecution as unfair. Rights compliance helps effective outcomes, it does not hinder them.

That should come as no surprise because the human rights in the Human Rights Act are the
rights adopted in the aftermath of the horrors of the second world war, and are designed to
protect all of us from oppression.

They were drafted by British lawyers and define the values we have held dear for decades, rooted
as they are in the principles of human dignity, democracy and the rule of law. To cast them aside
now would be to give up the very values that those who carried out the recent terrorist atrocities
want to attack. The prime minister is now threatening to do just that without any supporting
evidence; and without indicating how changing human rights laws would have prevented the
recent attacks in London and Manchester.

Instead, at this early stage of the investigations it is clear there are two critical challenges that
need a considered and concerted response. First, increasing the information flow to the police and
the security and intelligence services so that suspects come on to the radar much more quickly.
That calls into question once again whether the cuts to policing particularly neighbourhood and
community policing that May has overseen have made it harder to detect and monitor threats at
an early stage. It also calls into question how effective the current Prevent strategy is. I dont
doubt that we need a prevent strand to our overall counter-terrorism strategy, but I recognise
that unless and until it engages all communities, its effect will be limited.

The second critical challenge is in the risk assessment of those suspects who come on to the radar
of the police and security services. Emerging details that some of the terrorists involved in recent
attacks had come to the attention of the authorities for a limited period suggests that it was not
human rights laws, but rather resourcing challenges, that prevented the authorities from
monitoring and following up on threats. That is where the focus of investigations should lie.

The police and intelligence services will, no doubt, carry out a thorough review of the recent
attacks. From my dealings with them, they will absolutely want to make whatever changes are
needed. But if we are to get to the bottom of these appalling events and prevent further
atrocities, we need politicians to show raw honesty and willingness to confront hard truths.

Reaching for easy solutions that unpick our human rights framework will simply not do.

Actividades

1) Qu funcin ha desempeado Starmer?

2) Cul es su posicin respecto a las leyes de DDHH?
3) Qu funcin desempea May? Qu propone hacer?
4) Qu opinin tiene Starmer sobre la postura de May?
5) Qu situacin atraviesa el Reino Unido?