Conclusion: in the light of the above
discussion, would it be appropriate for Parliament to authorise
renewal of the powers under sections 21 to 23 of the ATCS Act?
60. In the light of the limited evidence available
for us to scrutinise, we are unable to express our own view of
the desirability or lawfulness, in human rights terms, of continuing
to operate sections 21 to 23 of the ATCS Act. However, we take
the view that the continuing role of Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C.
in monitoring and reporting on the operation of these provisions
is being performed in a thorough and rigorous way, with access
to all relevant evidence. We consider that the letter from Lord
Newton of Braintree, who chairs the committee of Privy Councillors
appointed to review the whole Act under section 122, indicates
that that committee will also take a thorough and rigorous approach
and have access to all relevant material. Once it gets fully under
way, hearing substantive appeals, we consider that SIAC is likely
to provide adequate safeguards for the Convention rights of detainees,
subject to the points made above in relation to the availability
of legal assistance and the role of the special advocate. We take
into account the views of SIAC and the Court of Appeal in relation
to the justification for the derogation from ECHR Article 5.1.
61. Having regard to all these matters, we consider
that it would be justifiable, on human rights grounds, to continue
the operation of the provisions in question for a further year,
as long as each House is satisfied as to the matters drawn to
its attention above.