New Labour exaggerate terrorist problem

A lawyer who represented one of the men acquitted in a terror trial earlier this year has accused the Government of misusing the justice system to justify passing anti-terror legislation.

Addressing a meeting organised by multi-faith group Peace and Justice in east London at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church, Solicitor Julian Hayes recalled how those cleared in a terror trial lasting nine months earlier this year were re-arrested at the time when the latest anti-terror legislation was launched in Parliament.

“The Government introduced the legislation and then there were the arrests – they were cynically saying this is why we need the legislation,” said Mr Hayes.

The lawyer led a discussion following a screening of the Panorama programme Blair versus Blair which examined the case which became known as the ricin trial, though no ricin was found and the men were acquitted.

Mr Hayes told how after the trial the Government and prosecution claimed there was intelligence evidence that they were unable to bring forward. However, he revealed that the defence had attempted to get much of this evidence into open court earlier in the case but were blocked by the prosecution itself.

Mr Hayes described this ploy adopted by the prosecution “as at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest.” Mr Hayes described the way in which the terrorist threat has been hyped up as ridiculous.

“It is not as though the threat of terrorism is not something that this country has dealt with before without resorting to such draconian legislation,” said Mr Hayes.

Mr Hayes paid tribute to the work of Peace and Justice in east London in supporting innocent people at the ricin and other trials. “It has become a powerful lobby group on anti-terror legislation,” said Mr Hayes.

Adrienne Burrows of Peace and Justice in east London, who attended the ricin trial, said she had had the privilege of meeting the people detained without trial. “Nothing could be further from the truth than this depiction of these individuals as preachers of hate.

The question that constantly came up at the trial was ‘where is the evidence?’ and of course there was none,” said Mr Hayes.