Court threat to anti-terror law
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.KATHERINE BUTLER
Brussels
Britain could be forced to revise its anti-terrorism laws if the European Court of Justice rules today that their operation infringes the right to move freely within the EU.
A ruling against Britain would further antagonise Euro-sceptic Tory backbenchers in the wake of the recent European Court of Human Rights' verdict condemning Britain for the 1988 SAS killings of three IRA bombers in Gibraltar.
It would also fuel demands that the powers of the Luxembourg-based court should be severely curtailed in next year's EU constitutional review.
The court is due to rule on a challenge by Irishman John Gallagher to a 1991 order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act barring him from the UK.
Its judgement could open the way for Mr Gallagher, expelled for alleged connections with the IRA, to sue the Government for compensation. Other compensation claims could follow: Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams brought a parallel case to the Luxembourg court which was withdrawn in May of this year.
In October the court was advised by its advocate general that Mr Gallagher's treatment by the British authorities was in conflict with the freedom of movement rights enshrined in the EU treaty. While the full court is free to ignore that advice, the advocate general's opinion is confirmed in eight out of 10 cases.
The key part of the interim ruling stated that although the British Government is entitled under EU law to expel individuals for security reasons, safeguards must include a full hearing by an independent authority before the expulsion decision becomes definitive. Mr Gallagher was given a hearing after his deportation by a Home Office official, and the judge implied that this could not be considered to be entirely independent.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments