ANTI-TERRORISM laws proposed by David Blunkett would undermine the right to a fair public trial, lawyers said yesterday. A Labour peer criticised the Home Secretary’s plan to keep sensitive intelligence evidence secret from defendants and to lower the burden of proof as “an affront to the rule of law”.

Under Mr Blunkett’s proposal, trials of British-born terrorism suspects would be held in secret before non-jury courts, presided over by security- vetted judges and specially vetted defence counsel.

The Home Secretary is suggesting that the burden of proof should be lowered from “beyond reasonable doubt” to on the “balance of probabilities” to make it easier to secure convictions. He will outline his proposals in a consultation document to be published at the end of the month.

His aides insisted yesterday that Mr Blunkett wanted a full debate on the issue and admitted that they did not have a “monopoly of wisdom” on how to handle the trials of British-based terrorism suspects. “We want a proper debate on this, on the balances that need to be considered and we hope others will put forward ideas”, one aide said.

Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, QC, compared Mr Blunkett to Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe. “He really is a shameless authoritarian,” said Lady Kennedy, who was appointed a peer by Tony Blair in 1997. She accused the Home Secretary of playing games by talking up the draconian nature of the plans in “a classic Blunkett tactic”.

She said: “You suggest all kinds of outrageous and awful things because then you get away with half of them,” she said. “We can be confident that many of his colleagues in the Cabinet, including particularly the Attorney-General, will sit on this because it really is an affront to the rule of law.”

Although lawyers criticised the plans, some conceded that Mr Blunkett faced a problem given the current security threat and the problem that evidence given in open court could compromise intelligence sources.

Nigel Pascoe, QC, the former leader of the Western Circuit, said: “Nobody should consider changing the burden of proof in this country. What we have to do is to review the procedures and consider how we deal with intelligence evidence given in court.”

He added that he could see a case for vetting judges and barristers in terrorism cases, particularly where sensitive evidence could be presented.

Louise Christian, the solicitor representing the family of Feroz Abbasi, one of nine Britons detained at the US base in Guantanamo Bay, said that Mr Blunkett appeared to be trying to create Britain’s own Guantanamo Bay.

“I don’t think he is fit to be Home Secretary, making extremist statements of this kind,” she said.

Mr Blunkett wants to extend the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 so that prosecutors can take action against suspected British extremists, even though the evidence may not be strong enough to win a conviction under existing laws.

• The decision to cancel British and French flights to the United States was based on terrorist intelligence from both sides of the Atlantic, security officials said yesterday. As travellers were caught by a second day of cancellations, security sources denied that there had been pressure from Washington. One official told The Times: “No one takes these decisions lightly.”

  On Sunday British Airways cancelled flights from Heathrow to Washington and Miami, Air France halted two to Washington from Paris, and Continental Airlines stopped a Glasgow-Los Angeles flight. Yesterday BA resumed its Miami flight, but again cancelled BA223. Air France cancelled a flight to Washington.Last night BA said that it expected to be back to normal today.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• An officer and a gentle woman
• Dame Helen Mirren is worthy of the Epidaurus
• Foods that can help to prevent swine flu