The rapid review whose findings are expected this autumn cover six main points, “the most controversial and most sensitive points”, which include control orders and deportation with assurances (DWA). The use of intercept evidence in terrorism trial, however, is to be considered in a separate review and does not come under the scope of this particular review. Civil liberties organisations were invited to make submissions for the review.
Justice: http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/JUSTICE%20response%20to%20CT%20review%20aug%2010%20FINAL.pdf
Control orders: Control orders are unnecessary, ineffective and offensive to basic principle. Recommends the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is repealed in its entirety.
DWA: Negotiating assurances with countries known to use torture is wrong in principle and ineffective in practice. The policy is flawed; the assurances are ineffective and unenforceable. These MoUs are also unlikely to be accepted when challenged as a basis for deportation before the ECtHR.
Liberty: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2010/moving-from-war-to-rule-of-law-.php
Control orders: Unsafe policy which has shown to be ineffective and frequently unworkable in practice.
DWA: Emphasises the absolute ban on the use of torture in international law.
Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR45/015/2010/en
Control orders: Criticises the terms imposed on controlees to restrict their freedom, use of secret material so that controlees do not know the case against them and cannot challenge it.
DWA: Amnesty opposes any reliance on diplomatic assurances where there is a real risk of grave human rights violation and the use of closed evidence in SIAC proceedings.
Commenting on the review, Paul Donovan wrote the following article:
http://paulfdonovan.blogspot.com/2010/07/terror-review-offers-hope-for.html
While in opposition, the current government of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties opposed control orders openly. The Conservatives firmly advocate the use of deportation with assurances, a policy area the Liberal Democrats do not appear to have a clear line on; whether the new government is proposing a real change and respect for civil liberties or a cosmetic change that involves little more than a change in the use of the terms applied remains to be seen.