Notification RequirementsPart 4 of the bill (clauses 51-68) creates notification requirements for individuals convicted of a terrorism offense or an offense with a terrorist connection, and sentenced to at least one year imprisonment. Upon release from custody, any such person would be required to register his or her name and address at the local police station, and inform police of any other address used for seven days or more, or for two periods during a year which taken together add up to seven days. 18 Those sentenced to between one and five years imprisonment would be subject to notification obligations for a ten-year period, while those sentenced to more than five-years would be subject to lifetime notification obligations. The bill would allow the Home Secretary to prescribe other information to be notified to the police on a case by case basis (clause 58), including advance details of foreign travel (clause 63), subject to affirmative resolution procedure. This procedure requires both houses of Parliament to approve the draft order before it is made. A breach of notification requirements would be a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison. Those subject to notification requirements could also be subject to an order prohibiting foreign travel (Schedule 6). A chief officer of police could apply to the local magistrate’s court for such an order to be imposed. The order could be appealed to the Crown Court. Notification requirements may be a reasonable measure for particularly serious crimes where there exists a risk of recidivism. Insofar as these requirements infringe on protected rights, they must be proportionate and necessary, and must not be imposed in an arbitrary manner. Human Rights Watch believes that notification requirements are only appropriate, in that they are designed to meet a legitimate aim, when subject to judicial scrutiny and tailored to suit the circumstances of a particular case. We are concerned, therefore, that the bill envisions the automatic imposition of notification requirements of all individuals sentenced to 12 months or more for a terrorism-related offense. The measure in this way is linked to the nature of the crime rather than to an individualized assessment of the risk of recidivism, and the procedure denies qualified experts the opportunity to evaluate whether the measure is necessary and proportionate. The UN Human Rights Committee has taken the view that the ICCPR prohibits depriving fundamental rights without regard to personal circumstances or based solely on the category of the crime for which the offender is found guilty.19 The decision to impose notification requirements should be based on an individualized assessment of the risk of recidivism. Such an assessment could be usefully incorporated into the general evaluation conducted when an individual becomes eligible for release from prison. This would minimize the additional burden on the system and would help ensure that those individuals who have been genuinely rehabilitated and do not pose a risk of re-offending are not subject to ten-year or lifelong notification obligations and the liability of a criminal sanction for breach of those obligations. We are also concerned that notification requirements are imposed for an indefinite period of time where an individual has been sentenced to five years or more for a terrorism-related offense. The period is ten years for those sentenced to between 12 months and 5 years. Although the imposition of notification requirements may be appealed to the Crown Court, the bill does not provide for any procedure for periodic review of the continuing need for notification requirements. In our assessment, imposing lifelong notification obligations under penalty of serious criminal sanction, without the possibility of amendment or removal, is a disproportionate response to a genuine public safety concern. We note that clause 55 provides for notification requirements to be imposed retroactively on individuals who are, immediately before the measures enter into force, in prison or detention, released on license or unlawfully at large. We are concerned that there appears to be no means for informing individuals unlawfully at large of their new obligations. Retroactive imposition on those unlawfully at large creates a situation in which these individuals will automatically be in breach and liable to a severe criminal sanction without having been duly informed. Finally, Human Rights Watch is deeply concerned about the imposition of notification requirements on those convicted outside the UK of a terrorism-related offense. Clause 66 gives effect to Schedule 5 of the bill, allowing chief officers of police to apply for notification requirements to be imposed on UK and foreign nationals living in their area who have been convicted abroad of terrorism offenses. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 laying out the three basic conditions for making a notification order in these cases does not provide for any assessment of whether the conviction in question was the result of a fair trial according to international standards. This carries an unacceptable risk of individuals convicted after trials tainted by egregious rights violations (for example, the use of torture evidence) being subjected to notification requirements. Furthermore, the burden of proof is improperly placed on the individual concerned to prove that the conditions for imposing notification requirements are not met (Paragraph 2 of Schedule 5). Human Rights Watch urges the House of Lords to amend the bill to:
18 Notification requirements would also apply to those found not guilty by reason of insanity or found to have acted under a disability and who are placed under a hospital order, confining them to a hospital. 19 Mr. Rawle Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 845/1998, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/74/D/845/1998 (2002), para. 7.3; Eversley Thompson v. St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Communication No. 806/1998, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/70/D/806/1998 (2000), para. 8.2. |