Quote: El Barbudo "That is my point.
Schedule 7 is purported to be an anti-terrorist measure but was used in a case where terrorism is very probably not the issue.
Was it legal? Very probably, under schedule 7.'"
A bit devil's advocate, but if a person happens to be a mule of stolen security data that poses a grave risk to national security and a threat to life in the wrong hands, then wouldn't it fit under the general label of terrorism-related matters?
Quote: El Barbudo "Was it right? To have an anti-terrorist law where terrorism doesn't even have to be suspected is way too catch-all and wide open for abuse, as this case probably shows.'"
Just the argument that was heard and rejected in yesterday's case, and which will exercise the ECHR in September in another case.
I've now had the opportunity to consider the judgment in
rlthe Sylvie Beghal caserl. I must say that I can't fault the logic.
The judgment also refers to annual reports by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which reviews naturally encompass the Schedule 7 powers, and what sounds like an ongoing number of consultations, checks and balances.
More to the point, The detailed judgment clearly addresses and deals with all the general principle and specific objections that have been raised earlier in the thread.
Hmm.
