Once she’s home, we can start living normally,” he said.Although Mr Justice Ryder rejected her attempt to delay legal proceedings over access to the child until April when she will have recovered from giving birth, she is expected to continue to fight the former Cabinet minister at every step.It is believed that Mrs Quinn will be summoned to a closed session of the High Court’s Family Division in the new year. Kimberly sat on a bench in Regent’s Park watching while I played with our son.”I have to say that she was looking a bit wan after half an hour, so we took her back. “Her medical team asked her to walk round the hospital gardens to get her strength up. She had her first outing last Saturday after nearly a week in hospital. Yesterday, her husband, Stephen Quinn, the 60-year-old multi-millionaire Cond?ast publisher, spoke for the first time since Mr Blunkett’s resignation about his wife’s condition and how he was hopeful she would be home by the weekend.”I want her home and she wants to be well enough to get home and look after our son,” Mr Quinn told The Daily Telegraph. We look to the Government to release our family immediately because this law is not a law.”Three of the detainees, driven mad by their three-year detention, were now in Broad- moor prison. Another has been released under conditions of strict house arrest because doctors had become so concerned about his mental health.Gareth Peirce, the solicitor representing eight of the detainees, said the Government must now free all of the men.”It will provoke a …

constitutional crisis if the Government fails to act swiftly,” she said.The director of the civil rights group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, said future generations would be “proud” that democratic values had been chosen over “the politics of fear”.”By acting as judge, jury and jailer, the Government hasflouted the very values it claims to defend. It must now act and charge or release all those currently held without delay.”. Drunken Christmas and New Year yobs are being targeted in a tough Government crackdown on binge-drinking launched today. lock up that group but not the ‘white’, ‘able-bodied’, ‘male’ or ’straight’ suspected international terrorists. The answer is clear.” After being told of the ruling, detainee “A”, who is being held in Woodhill Prison, Buckinghamshire, said: “This ruling should send a message to the legislators that ‘national security’ can never take precedence over human rights.”The brother of suspect “E”, currently in Belmarsh, said: “At last we see some justice. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.”Baroness Hale said that the law was clearly discriminatory: “Substitute ‘black’, ‘disabled’, ‘female’, ‘gay’, .. and ask whether it would be justifiable to …

The new Home Secretary said that he did not believe civil liberties were “airy-fairy”, as Mr Blunkett had described them, and said that he valued very highly the independence of the judiciary, with whom Mr Blunkett clashed frequently.Mr Blunkett’s resignation failed to end the Government’s problems over the fast-tracking of an application for a residence visa for the nanny of his former lover Kimberly Quinn. This threatened a new outbreak of hostilities with Gordon Brown, whose allies expressed concern about the appointment of David Miliband to a key role in drafting Labour’s election manifesto.But it is yesterday’s judgment that presents the most immediate crisis for the Govern- ment, as the powerful language used by the law lords leaves little room for manoeuvre.Lord Hoffmann, one of the panel of nine law lords, said: “[This case] calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention.”In response to government arguments that the anti-terrorism Act was necessary to protect the life of the nation, Lord Hoffmann said: “The real threat to the life of the nation … Downing Street had to fend off claims that there was a “cover up” at the Home Office.Mr Blunkett’s resignation also raised question marks over Mr Blair’s judgement in backing his fight to keep his post.The Prime Minister fought back by using the ensuing reshuffle to put a New Labour stamp on his ministerial team by promoting a new generation of Blairites. The Scottish regiments were the most affected with five, including the Black Watch, rolled into one.Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, and General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Army, forcefully argued the restructuring was necessary in the post-Cold War era.But the announcement of the measures in the Commons led to acrimonious exchanges and Annabelle Ewing, the Scottish Nationalist MP for Perth, was ordered out of the chamber after calling Mr Hoon a “backstabbing coward”. But the uncompromising tone of yesterday’s judgment may mean that this is not a tenable position for the Government to hold.Mr Clarke defended Mr Blunkett’s plans for identity cards yesterday but hinted that he might adopt a more liberal stance than his predecessor on some issues. Controversial anti-terror laws championed by David Blunkett in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks were dealt a devastating blow yesterday in a historic judgment by the House of Lords. Just hours after he resigned as Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett had to suffer the fresh humiliation of seeing one of his flagship policies being dismantled by the law lords.

The law lords’ opinion, delivered by an eight-to-one majority, leaves the Government little option but to rethink its key policy on terrorism.After the ruling, MPs, Muslim leaders and civil rights groups called on Mr Blunkett’s successor, Charles Clarke, to order the release of all 11 foreign terror suspects still held under the terms of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.The Government remained defiant and Mr Clarke, following Mr Blunkett’s lead, said he would fight to keep the men locked up. But on 18 March this year, detainee M was freed after the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, upheld a Siac ruling that his 16-month detention was based on “wholly unreliable” evidence. The next month, detainee G was granted bail after Siac ruled he could be held under effective house arrest due to his failing mental health. Mr Blunkett condemned the decision as “extraordinary”.On 4 August Parliament’s all-party Joint Committee on Human Rights also condemned ATCSA’s internment powers.The judicial committee of the House of Lords began hearing the appeal by nine of the detainees on 4 October.Last week The Independent on Sunday reported that two detainees had been moved from Belmarsh high-security prison to Broadmoor secure mental hospital – taking to four the number of detainees suffering from serious mental ill-health..

but also it is disproportionate” because it only applies to foreign nationals.In October, the Court of Appeal overruled the Siac decision. And on 12 February 2003, the Government’s independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, backed Mr Blunkett. Five days later anti-terror officers arrested eight suspected international terrorists. Mr Blunkett personally signed their detention certificates.None of the suspects was told of what they were accused or how long they could expect to be held in British prisons.But in July 2002 the first sign of judicial disquiet was found in a ruling of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac), which said that the law is “not only discriminatory and so unlawful … The law lords’ landmark judgment will act as a constitutional break on any further attempts by the Government to weaken the principles of the Human Rights Act.
By questioning the Government’s response to the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, the law lords have seriously ruffled ministers’ feathers.In the aftermath of 9/11, Britain was the only country to consider the threat so imminent that it was necessary to opt out from article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.And so it was on 15 October 2001 that David Blunkett, the former home secretary, unveiled powers to allow the security services to detain foreign suspects without charge or trial.