View source for Liberty (advocacy group)

{{short description|UK advocacy group and membership organisation}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2023}}
{{Use British English|date=May 2024}}
{{Infobox organization
| image = Liberty advocacy group logo 2018.png
| alt = <!-- alt text; see [[WP:ALT]] -->
| caption = 
| map = <!-- optional -->
| formation = {{Nowrap|{{Start date and age|1934|02|22|df=y}}}}
| extinction = <!-- date of extinction, optional -->
| type = [[Political pressure group]]
| status = [[Trust law|Trust]]
| focus = Human rights
| headquarters = London, England
| coords = <!-- Coordinates of location using a coordinates template -->
| language = <!-- official languages -->
| leader_title = Director
| leader_name = Akiko Hart
| main_organ = <!-- gral. assembly, board of directors, etc -->
| parent_organization = <!-- if one -->
| affiliations = <!-- if any -->
| budget = 
| remarks = 
| name = Liberty<br><small>The National Council for Civil Liberties</small>
| image_border = 
| size = <!-- default 200 -->
| msize = <!-- map size, optional, default 200px -->
| malt = <!-- map alt text -->
| mcaption = <!-- optional -->
| abbreviation = 
| location = 
| region_served = 
| membership = 
| num_staff = 
| num_volunteers = 
| website = {{Nowrap|{{URL|https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk}}}}
}}
'''Liberty''', formerly, and still formally, called the '''National Council for Civil Liberties''' ('''NCCL'''),<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/structure/agm-resolutions/constitution-amended-2007.pdf Liberty – Constitution and Rules] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927060558/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/structure/agm-resolutions/constitution-amended-2007.pdf |date=27 September 2011 }} | As amended by the AGM 19 May 2007</ref> is an [[advocacy group]] and membership organisation based in the [[United Kingdom]], which challenges unjust laws, protects [[civil liberties]] and promotes [[human rights]]. It does this through the courts, in [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] and in the wider community. Liberty also aims to engender a "rights culture" within British society.<ref name="EncycloB&IPO" /> The NCCL was founded in 1934 by [[Ronald Kidd]] and [[Sylvia Scaffardi|Sylvia Crowther-Smith]] (later Scaffardi),<ref name="EncycloB&IPO">[https://books.google.com/books?id=qps14mSlghcC&dq=ronald+kidd+scaffardi&pg=PA373 Liberty ] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140107155022/http://books.google.com/books?id=qps14mSlghcC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=ronald+kidd+scaffardi&source=web&ots=2hcIL6FGUa&sig=be6l1WnH6YaqmyjeqnedVxhIYE4#PPA373,M1 |date=7 January 2014 }} | Entry in the Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organisations</ref> motivated by their [[secular humanist|humanist]] convictions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://heritage.humanists.uk/sylvia-scaffardi/|title=Sylvia Scaffardi|work=Humanist Heritage|publisher=[[Humanists UK]]|accessdate=29 July 2021}}</ref>

During the 1950s, the NCCL campaigned for reform of the [[mental health]] system, under which people known to be sane but deemed 'morally defective' – unmarried mothers, for example – could be locked up in an asylum. By 1957, the campaign had seen the release of around 2,000 inmates, the abolition of the [[Mental Deficiency Act 1913]], and the establishment of new Mental Health Review Tribunals which culminated in the [[Mental Health Act 1959]].

Since 2016, Liberty's work has been dominated by a High Court challenge to the [[Investigatory Powers Act 2016|Investigatory Powers Act]], as well as campaigning against the so-called '[[Home Office hostile environment policy|hostile environment]]' policies which allow indefinite [[Immigration detention in the United Kingdom|immigration detention]] in the UK.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="auto" />

In autumn 2019, the organisation set up '''Liberty Investigates''', an editorially independent journalism unit. Its initial focus was on how the [[COVID-19 pandemic|coronavirus pandemic]] affects [[Human rights|Human Rights]] in the UK.

== History ==

===Foundation and early years===

The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) was founded in 1934, following the events at the end of the [[National Hunger March, 1932|National Hunger March 1932]] and in advance of the second hunger march.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/about-us/libertys-history/how-liberty-was-founded/|title=Liberty|work=libertyhumanrights.org.uk|access-date=25 April 2025|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110170353/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/history/how-liberty-was-founded.php|archive-date=10 November 2012|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite ODNB|id=75674|first=Mark|last=Pottle|title=Kidd, Ronald Hubert (1889–1942)}}</ref> The inaugural meeting took place in the church of [[St. Martin-in-the-Fields]] in London on 22 February, and a letter published in ''[[The Times]]'' and ''[[The Guardian]]'' newspapers announced the formation of the group, citing "the general and alarming tendency to encroachment on the liberty of the [[citizenship|citizen]]" as the reason for its establishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.guardian.co.uk/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=R1VBLzE5MzQvMDIvMjQjQXIwMDYwMA==&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-customl|title=The Guardian and Observer digital archive|work=The Guardian|access-date=12 January 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111117111829/http://archive.guardian.co.uk/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=R1VBLzE5MzQvMDIvMjQjQXIwMDYwMA==&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-customl|archive-date=17 November 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> The first Secretary was [[Ronald Kidd]], and first President was the novelist [[E. M. Forster]]; vice-presidents were the politician and author [[A. P. Herbert]] and the journalist [[Kingsley Martin]] of the ''[[New Statesman]]''. [[H. G. Wells]], [[Lewis Clive]], [[Vera Brittain]], [[Clement Attlee]], [[Rebecca West]], [[Edith Summerskill]] and [[Harold Laski]] were also founder members.<ref name="autogenerated1934">Dyson, Brian (1994): ''Liberty in Britain 1934–1994: a diamond jubilee history of the National Council for Civil Liberties''. Civil Liberties Trust.</ref>

The first campaign was against the criminalisation of pacifist or anti-war literature. Under the proposed Incitement to Disaffection Bill, commonly known as the 'Sedition Bill', it would have been a criminal offence to possess pacifist literature, for example anti-war pamphlets. Although the Bill became law as the [[Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934]], NCCL succeeded in watering it down.<ref name="autogenerated1934"/> Other prominent early themes included campaigning against fascists, against film censorship and support for striking miners in [[Nottinghamshire]].<ref name="archiveshub1">[http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/hullhistory-liberty.html Administrative/Biographical History], Liberty | Liberty Archive on the ''Archives hub''. Retrieved 16 January 2013. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716200101/http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/hullhistory-liberty.html |date=16 July 2011 }}.</ref>

=== World War II ===
When [[Oswald Mosley]] was released from prison in 1943 (he had been imprisoned without trial under [[Defence Regulation 18B]]), the National Council for Civil Liberties demanded his continued imprisonment. [[A. W. B. Simpson|A.W. Brian Simpson]] notes that the NCCL "had become an enthusiastic supporter of detention without trial".<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/in-the-highest-degree-odious-9780198259497?cc=us&lang=en&|title=In the Highest Degree Odious: Detention without Trial in Wartime Britain|date=1995-01-12|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-825949-7|location=Oxford, New York|pages=391}}</ref> [[Harold Nicolson]] and 38 others resigned from the NCCL over the issue.<ref>Richard Thurlow, "Fascism in Britain", I.B. Tauris, 1998, p. 199.</ref>

=== Liberty ===

In 1989, NCCL rebranded as "Liberty". During this period, the organisation was headed by Andrew Puddephatt and John Wadham.

On 10 September 2001, [[Shami Chakrabarti]] joined Liberty.<ref name="DIDiscs SC">{{cite episode
 |title=Desert Island Discs featuring Shami Chakrabarti 
 |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs_20081102.shtml
 |series=Desert Island Discs
 |series-link=Desert Island Discs
 |network=[[BBC]]
 |station=[[BBC Radio 4|Radio 4]]
 |airdate=2 November 2008
 |url-status=dead
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090210215233/http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs_20081102.shtml
 |archive-date=10 February 2009
}}</ref> After working as in-house counsel, she was appointed director of Liberty in 2003. As director, she began campaigning against what the pressure group saw as the "excessive" anti-terrorist measures that followed the [[11 September 2001 attacks]] in the United States, such as the [[Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001]] (ATCSA).<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3639988/So-much-freedom-lost-and-on-my-watch.html | work=The Daily Telegraph| location=London | title=So much freedom lost and on my watch | first=Shami | last=Chakrabarti | date=20 May 2007 | access-date=23 May 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120803002234/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3639988/So-much-freedom-lost-and-on-my-watch.html | archive-date=3 August 2012 | url-status=live }}</ref> Liberty became increasingly high-profile, with Chakrabarti making regular appearances in the media. She was described in ''[[The Times]]'' newspaper as "the most effective public affairs lobbyist of the past 20 years".<ref>[https://www.thetimes.com/best-law-firms/profile-legal/article/ignore-the-paranoid-fantasists-fdqj8j7dvql Column]  by David Aaronovitch for ''[[The Times]]''.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/22/humanrights.civilliberties|title=Profile: Shami Chakrabarti, the undaunted freedom fighter|first=Jamie |last=Doward|work=The Guardian|date=21 June 2008 |access-date=4 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510202719/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/22/humanrights.civilliberties|archive-date=10 May 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

Since the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 UK general election]], Liberty has spearheaded the campaign to save the Human Rights Act. In August 2015, Chakrabarti said Liberty intended to become "more vigilant and active" in Scotland.<ref>{{cite news|last=Beaton|first=Connor|url=http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/08/20/shami-chakrabartis-liberty-sets-sights-on-scotland/|title=Shami Chakrabarti's Liberty sets sights on Scotland|publisher=[[Scottish Legal News]]|date=20 August 2015|access-date=23 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925055232/http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/08/20/shami-chakrabartis-liberty-sets-sights-on-scotland/|archive-date=25 September 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> She later shared a platform with Scotland's First Minister [[Nicola Sturgeon]] to jointly defend the HRA.<ref>{{cite news|last=Beaton|first=Connor|url=http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/09/23/human-rights-act-repeal-would-diminish-uk-reputation-says-sturgeon/|title=Human Rights Act repeal would diminish UK reputation, says Sturgeon|publisher=[[Scottish Legal News]]|date=23 September 2015|access-date=23 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923223416/http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/09/23/human-rights-act-repeal-would-diminish-uk-reputation-says-sturgeon/|archive-date=23 September 2015|url-status=live}}</ref>

In January 2016 it emerged that Chakrabarti was standing down as Liberty's director.<ref>{{cite news|last=Bowcott|first=Owen|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/14/shami-chakrabarti-steps-down-liberty-director-12-years|title=Shami Chakrabarti steps down as Liberty director after 12 years|work=The Guardian|date=14 January 2016|access-date=14 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114012437/http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/14/shami-chakrabarti-steps-down-liberty-director-12-years|archive-date=14 January 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Martha Spurrier]] took up the post at the end of May.<ref name="Bowcott310316">{{cite news|last=Bowcott|first=Owen|date=31 March 2016|title=Liberty names barrister Martha Spurrier as new director|work=The Guardian|location=London|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/31/liberty-names-barrister-martha-spurrier-new-director-shami-chakrabarti|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160331120702/http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/mar/31/liberty-names-barrister-martha-spurrier-new-director-shami-chakrabarti|archive-date=31 March 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35936208|title=Liberty names barrister Martha Spurrier as new director|publisher=BBC News|date=31 March 2016|access-date=31 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160331190029/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35936208|archive-date=31 March 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

Since 2016, Liberty's work has been dominated by taking a High Court challenge to the [[Investigatory Powers Act 2016|Investigatory Powers Act]], and campaigning against the so-called '[[Home Office hostile environment policy|hostile environment]]' policies and for an end to the use of indefinite [[Immigration detention in the United Kingdom|immigration detention]] in the UK.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/liberty-wins-first-battle-landmark-challenge-mass-surveillance|title=Liberty wins first battle in landmark challenge to mass surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act|last=katiebamber|date=2018-04-27|website=Liberty Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170138/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/liberty-wins-first-battle-landmark-challenge-mass-surveillance|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/campaigning/end-indefinite-detention|title=End Indefinite Detention|last=LaurenceHolmes|date=2018-01-25|website=Liberty Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170219/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/campaigning/end-indefinite-detention|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In autumn 2019, the organisation set up '''Liberty Investigates''', an editorially independent journalism unit that sits within Liberty. The unit formally launched in April 2020 with an initial focus on how the [[COVID-19 pandemic|coronavirus pandemic]] is affecting [[Human rights|Human Rights]] in the UK.<ref>{{Cite web|date=16 April 2020|title=Liberty launches investigative journalism unit|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/liberty-launches-investigative-journalism-unit/|access-date=18 June 2021|website=Liberty}}</ref>

In January 2024, Akiko Hart took over the role of director of Liberty.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/akiko-hart-takes-over-from-martha-spurrier-as-permanent-director-of-liberty/ |title=Akiko Hart takes over from Martha Spurrier as permanent Director of Liberty |publisher=Liberty|date=24 January 2024}}</ref>

== Campaigns ==

===Post-war===

'''BBC ban'''

During the 1940s, the NCCL led protests against a [[BBC]] ban on artists who attended a 'People's Convention' organised by the [[Communist Party of Great Britain|Communist Party]].<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

'''Soldiers' civil liberties'''

In the years following the [[World War II|Second World War]], the NCCL campaigned for better civil liberties protections for members of the Armed Forces, including for better education and vocational training, a fairer military justice system and freedom of voluntary association.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The National Council for Civil Liberties: The First Fifty Years|url=https://archive.org/details/nationalcouncilf00lill|url-access=registration|last=Lilly|first=Mark|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|year=1984|isbn=978-1-349-17483-6|location=London|pages=[https://archive.org/details/nationalcouncilf00lill/page/64 64]}}</ref>

'''Miscarriages of justice'''

At this time NCCL was also involved in several [[miscarriage of justice]] cases, including that of Emery, Powers and Thompson, who were sentenced to between four and ten years' imprisonment for assaulting a police officer, even though someone else [[Confession (law)|confessed]] to the crime and the prosecution evidence was flawed. NCCL found a witness who confirmed the men's [[alibi]] and they were released from prison and granted a [[pardon|royal pardon]].<ref name="liberty-human-rights1">[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/legal/key-liberty-legal-cases.php Liberty Legal Work] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721020612/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/legal/key-liberty-legal-cases.php |date=21 July 2011 }} | on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk</ref>

'''Reform of the Mental Health System'''

During the 1950s NCCL campaigned for reform of the [[mental health]] system, under which people known to be sane but deemed 'morally defective' – unmarried mothers, for example – could be locked up in an asylum.

By 1957, the campaign had seen the release of around 2,000 former inmates, the abolition of the [[Mental Deficiency Act 1913]] and the establishment of new Mental Health Review Tribunals and the [[Mental Health Act 1959]].<ref>Swain, J. & French, S. (1999): ''Therapy and Learning Difficulties: Advocacy, Participation and Partnership''. Oxford: [[Butterworth–Heinemann]].</ref>

===1960–1974===

In the 1960s the organisation broadened its scope, particularly from 1966 under new general secretary [[Tony Smythe]]. It campaigned on racial issues, on behalf of the Romani community , children, prisoners and servicemen who had changed their decision about joining the forces.<ref name="archiveshub1"/> This broader range of campaigning resulted in a large rise in membership and a higher profile in the media.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/mar/29/guardianobituaries.humanrights|title=Obituary: Tony Smythe|newspaper=The Guardian|first=Michael|last=Randle|date=29 March 2004 |access-date=4 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510202836/https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/mar/29/guardianobituaries.humanrights|archive-date=10 May 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>
It campaigned for the retaining of the public right to petition the ECHR, its General Secretary Martin Loney writing to the Prime Minister, [[Edward Heath]]. However, Loney was controversially sacked by the executive of the NCCL led by its chair, [[Henry Hodge]].<ref>Moores, Chris, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in Twentieth-Century Britain CUP (2017)</ref>

'''Opposition to racial discrimination'''

After 1960, NCCL responded to the tightening of [[immigration law]]s and a rise in race-hate incidents by lobbying for the [[Race Relations Act 1965|Race Relations Act]], which came into force in 1965. NCCL also published pamphlets exposing the effective 'colour bar', whereby black and Asian people were refused service in certain pubs and hotels.<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

Following Conservative MP Enoch Powell's [[Rivers of Blood speech]] in 1968 the NCCL set about organising an emergency "Speak out on Race" meeting and also presented an NCCL petition to the [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]].

'''Women's rights'''

Campaigning for [[women's rights]] was also a major part of NCCL's work in this period, including successfully calling for reform of jury service laws that effectively prevented women and the poor from serving on juries by means of a property qualification.<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

'''Right to public protest'''

NCCL intervened on behalf of groups refused permission to protest and monitoring the policing of demonstrations such as those against the [[Vietnam War]].<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

'''Support for reluctant servicemen'''

NCCL also campaigned to raise awareness of the difficulty faced by 'reluctant servicemen' – men in the armed forces who had often signed up as teenagers then realised they'd made a mistake but were prevented from discharging themselves for anything up to 16 years.<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

'''Northern Ireland'''

In 1972 NCCL campaigned for civil rights in [[Northern Ireland]].<ref name="Dooley1998">{{cite book|first=Brian |last=Dooley|title=Black and Green: The Fight for Civil Rights in Northern Ireland & Black America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lI5TDscIjLcC&pg=PA41|year=1998|publisher=Pluto Press|isbn=978-0-7453-1295-8|page=41}}</ref>

'''Data protection'''

In 1975 NCCL bought 3 million credit rating files from Konfax Ltd after they were offered for sale in the ''[[Evening Standard]]''. The files were destroyed and the major privacy protection 'Right to Know' campaign to give individuals greater control over their personal information was launched in 1977.<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

===1975–1989===
Near the end of 1974, [[Patricia Hewitt]], later a [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] cabinet minister, was appointed as general secretary.<ref name="archiveshub1"/> A number of other future high-profile Labour politicians worked at the organisation at this time, such as [[Harriet Harman]], who worked as the legal officer from 1978 to 1982, [[Jack Dromey]], later her husband, was a member (1970–79) and chairman of the executive committee, and [[Diane Abbott]] was employed as Race Relations Officer (1978–80).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/candidates/candidates/2/28601.stm|title=BBC NEWS - VOTE 2001 - CANDIDATES|publisher=BBC News|access-date=23 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714231139/http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/candidates/candidates/2/28601.stm|archive-date=14 July 2014|url-status=live}}</ref>

'''Paedophilia'''

In 1976, the NCCL in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee of the British Parliament argued that "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage". The NCCL also sought to place the "onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed" rather than having a blanket ban on [[child pornography]] and advocated the [[decriminalisation]] of [[incest]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/|title=How Hattie's friends defended paedophilia|work=News - Telegraph Blogs|first=Damian |last=Thompson|date=9 October 2012| access-date=20 October 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160405123306/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/|archive-date=5 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> Organisations such as [[Paedophile Information Exchange]] (P.I.E.), a pro-paedophile activist group, and Paedophile Action for Liberation became affiliated to the pressure group.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html|title=Harriet Harman under attack over bid to water down child pornography law|first=Martin |last=Beckford|date=9 March 2009|work=The Daily Telegraph|location=London|access-date=2 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110222181130/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html|archive-date=22 February 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref> Prominent pro-paedophile activist [[Tom O'Carroll]] also sat on the NCCL's sub-committee for gay rights.<ref name="Bindel">{{cite news|last=Bindel|first=Julie|url=http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/6193/full|title=Britain's Apologists For Child Abuse|work=Standpoint|date=September 2015|access-date=15 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160806060901/http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/6193/full|archive-date=6 August 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Shami Chakrabarti]], the former director of Liberty, issued an apology about the links between the NCCL and the PIE. In December 2013, she said: "It is a source of continuing disgust and horror that even the NCCL had to expel paedophiles from its ranks in 1983 after infiltration at some point in the 70s."<ref>{{cite news |last=Hope |first=Christopher |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10659100/Harriet-Harman-Jack-Dromey-Patricia-Hewitt-and-the-Paedophile-Information-Exchange.html |title=Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt and the Paedophile Information Exchange |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph|date=24 February 2014 |access-date=25 February 2014 |location=London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140302221126/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10659100/Harriet-Harman-Jack-Dromey-Patricia-Hewitt-and-the-Paedophile-Information-Exchange.html |archive-date=2 March 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Rowena |last=Mason |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophile-campaign-allegations |title=Harriet Harman rejects allegations of 1970s link to paedophile campaign |newspaper=The Guardian |access-date=25 February 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140224232038/http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophile-campaign-allegations |archive-date=24 February 2014 |url-status=live }}</ref>

'''Gay rights and censorship'''

NCCL acted for the owners of [[Gay's the Word (bookshop)|''Gay's the Word'' bookshop]], whose stock was confiscated by Customs officers in 1984. All charges were dropped in 1986.<ref>{{cite news|last1=McKerrow|first1=Graham|last2=Northmore|first2=David|title=Newsflash|url=http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ncropa/ncropa-1986-87.pdf|access-date=31 March 2016|work=Defend Gay's the Word Campaign|date=27 June 1986|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510143121/http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/ncropa/ncropa-1986-87.pdf|archive-date=10 May 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

'''Miners' strike'''

During the [[UK miners' strike (1984–1985)|miners' strike]], NCCL campaigned on behalf of miners stopped from picketing outside their home regions.<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

'''MI5 surveillance'''

The [[European Court of Human Rights]] ruled that [[MI5]] [[surveillance]] of [[Harriet Harman]] and [[Patricia Hewitt]] during the pair's tenure at Liberty breached the [[European Convention on Human Rights]].<ref name="liberty-human-rights1"/>

===1990–2004===

'''Detention without charge'''

During the [[Gulf War]], Liberty successfully campaigned for the release of more than 100 Iraqi nationals – some of whom were openly opposed to [[Saddam Hussein]] – detained without charge in Britain on the grounds that they posed a risk to [[national security]].<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

'''Miscarriage of justice'''

Throughout the 1990s Liberty focused again on miscarriage of justice cases and campaigned for reform of the criminal justice system. High-profile cases included that of the [[Birmingham Six]], who were released after 16 years in prison for [[Irish Republican Army|IRA]] bombings they did not commit.<ref name="autogenerated1934"/>

'''Human Rights Act'''

At the start of the 2000s, Liberty used the protections in the new [[Human Rights Act 1998]] to fight a number of landmark cases. Including supporting terminally ill [[Diane Pretty]]'s fight to [[die with dignity]] and [[Christine Goodwin (activist)|Christine Goodwin]]'s fight for transgender rights.

'''''A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department'''''

Liberty intervened in the long-running ''[[A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department]]'' case following which the [[Law Lords]] ruled that detaining non-British nationals without trial was unlawful. In a 2005 judgment the Law Lords also confirmed that [[evidence]] obtained through [[torture]] was not admissible in [[Courts of the United Kingdom|British courts]].<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand-1.htm Judgments – A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170415033143/https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051208/aand-1.htm |date=15 April 2017 }} | House of the Lords, Session 2005–06</ref>

'''Katharine Gun'''

In 2004, Liberty acted for the translator and [[whistleblower]] [[Katharine Gun]] who claimed that the American [[National Security Agency]] had requested the [[Government of the United Kingdom|British Government]]'s help in illegal [[surveillance]] on the UN. She was prosecuted under the [[Official Secrets Act 1989]]. The charges were dropped when the prosecution failed to offer any evidence.<ref name="liberty-human-rights1"/>

=== 2005–2014 ===

'''Pre-charge detention'''

During 2007 and 2008 Liberty led the opposition to government plans to extend detention without charge for those suspected of terrorism to 42 days.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Owen|first1=Paul|title=Chakrabarti attacks Asian MPs over support for 42-day detention|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jul/16/terrorism.civilliberties|access-date=31 March 2016|work=The Guardian|date=16 July 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411120159/http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jul/16/terrorism.civilliberties|archive-date=11 April 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> Chakrabarti and Liberty claimed a major campaign victory when the government dropped the proposal after it was rejected by the [[House of Lords]] in October 2008.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Chakrabarti|first1=Shami|title=On 42 days, their lordships were glorious|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/detention-without-charge-42-days|access-date=31 March 2016|work=The Guardian|date=14 October 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411121535/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/detention-without-charge-42-days|archive-date=11 April 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

'''Gooch Gang'''

In April 2009, Liberty protested against a poster campaign by [[Greater Manchester Police]] which depicted a series of notorious Manchester gangsters, the [[Gooch Gang]], as pensioners. The billboard campaign used computer-generated images of Colin Joyce and [[Lee Amos]] to show how the "aged" criminals would look when they are finally released from prison in the 2040s. Liberty supported claims that the posters should be removed following complaints from family members of the gangsters, not involved with their relatives' criminality, who claimed they were being targeted in the community after the posters were erected.<ref>Edward, Richard (17 June 2009), [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5558113/Gooch-crime-gang-relatives-sue-police-for-breaching-human-rights.html "Gooch crime gang relatives sue police for 'breaching human rights{{'"}}], ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]''. Retrieved 16 January 2013. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919121608/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5558113/Gooch-crime-gang-relatives-sue-police-for-breaching-human-rights.html |date=19 September 2018 }}.</ref>

'''Cream of Conscience'''

November 2011 saw Liberty successfully assist in preventing [[Westminster City Council]] from [[implementation|implementing]] a proposed [[By-law|byelaw]] which would have essentially criminalised "soup runs" within areas of [[Southwark]].<ref>BethPH, [http://londonist.com/2011/06/liberty-serves-up-cream-of-conscience-to-council.php "Liberty Serves Up Cream Of Conscience To Council"], ''The Londonist'', 3 June 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2013. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111008090053/http://londonist.com/2011/06/liberty-serves-up-cream-of-conscience-to-council.php |date=8 October 2011 }}.</ref><ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/soup-run/soup-run.php Soup Run Campaign]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611190418/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/soup-run/soup-run.php |date=2011-06-11 }} | on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk</ref>

'''Freedom Games?'''

In response to the vast security systems which were put in place ahead of the London 2012 [[Olympic Games]], Liberty raised concerns with regards to the infringements to civil liberties which would subsequently occur. Liberty argued that neither [[Nonviolent resistance|peaceful protest]] nor the right to free speech were a factor in ensuring the safety of the Games.<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/olympics/freedom-games-.php  Freedom Games Campaign] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110165339/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/olympics/freedom-games-.php |date=10 November 2012 }} | on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk</ref>

'''For their eyes only'''

Another prominent campaign in 2012 was "For their eyes only"<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/for-their-eyes-only/for-their-eyes-only.php For Their Eyes Only Campaign] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130128090127/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/for-their-eyes-only/for-their-eyes-only.php |date=28 January 2013 }} | on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk</ref> in response to the proposed Justice and Security Bill which was introduced in the [[House of Lords]] on 28 May 2012.  The [[Bill (law)|Bill]] was introduced as a result of prolific media investigations and litigation surrounding the UK Government and proposed "secret courts"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lawyersforlondon.co.uk/2012/09/secret-courts-the-essential-guide|title=Secret courts – the essential guide|publisher=Lawyers for London|date=25 September 2012|access-date=16 January 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150724203824/http://lawyersforlondon.co.uk/2012/09/secret-courts-the-essential-guide|archive-date=24 July 2015}}</ref> and evidence which would be non-disclosable.  A campaign presence and attendance by [[Shami Chakrabarti]] at the Liberal Democrats Conference in September 2012 in Brighton successfully led to the passing of a motion by Jo Shaw, Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Spokesperson for Holborn and St Pancras, against the Bill.<ref>Sankey, Isabella (26 September 2012), [http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2012/tide-turns-on-secret-courts.php "Tide turns on secret courts"],  www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121013074246/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2012/tide-turns-on-secret-courts.php |date=13 October 2012 }}.</ref> Nevertheless, the substantially unchanged Bill became law in April 2013.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/justiceandsecurity/stages.html|title=Bill stages — Justice and Security Act 2013|publisher=Parliament of the United Kingdom|access-date=8 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130511155014/http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/justiceandsecurity/stages.html|archive-date=11 May 2013|url-status=live}}</ref>

'''Extradition Watch'''

A prominent campaign by Liberty was in relation to fairer extradition laws and the opposition of unfair extradition proceedings, the most prominent case being that of [[Gary McKinnon]] who gained worldwide press attention. Other prolific cases included that of Babar Ahmed, Talha Ahsan and Christopher Tappin.

'''Gary McKinnon'''

16 October 2012 saw a victory for [[Gary McKinnon]], after a decade-long ordeal, as the Home Secretary, [[Theresa May]], announced that she was refusing to allow Gary's extradition to the US on the basis that doing so would breach his Human Rights.<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/mckinn-1.htm Judgments – Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and Another] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120303214610/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/mckinn-1.htm |date=3 March 2012 }} | House of Lords, Session 2007–08</ref> Gary McKinnon was charged in 2002 of hacking into [[United States Armed Forces|US military]] and [[NASA]] systems, but maintains that he was looking for [[UFO]]s and evidence of [[free energy suppression]]. Gary, who has [[Asperger syndrome]], could have spent up to 70 years in a US jail if convicted<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-not-extradited-may|title=Gary McKinnon will not be extradited to US, Theresa May announces|first=Alan |last=Travis|work=The Guardian|date=16 October 2012 |access-date=4 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161201214932/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-not-extradited-may|archive-date=1 December 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> and it was argued by his lawyers in an appeal to the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECHR) that because of this factor and because the crime was committed in the UK that he should be tried in the UK. Director of Liberty, [[Shami Chakrabarti]] said of the [[Home Secretary]]'s decision "This is a great day for rights, freedoms and justice in the United Kingdom."<ref>Bowcott, Owen (16 October 2013), [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-hacker-sparked-storm?newsfeed=true "Gary McKinnon: how unknown hacker sparked political and diplomatic storm"], ''[[The Guardian]]''. Retrieved 16 January 2013. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170510203150/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-hacker-sparked-storm?newsfeed=true |date=10 May 2017 }}.</ref> The Home Office also admitted that it was the Human Rights Act which essentially prevented the extradition.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/24/mckinnon_extradition_watch_campaign/|title=Liberty launches McKinnon paper plane campaign|work=theregister.co.uk|first=John |last=Leyden|date=24 Aug 2009 |access-date=10 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170810135238/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/24/mckinnon_extradition_watch_campaign/|archive-date=10 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Shami Chakrabarti (6 October 2012), [http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2012/home-secretary-accepts-it-was-the-human-rights-act-that-.php "Home Secretary accepts it was the Human Rights Act that saved Gary"], www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130801021748/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2012/home-secretary-accepts-it-was-the-human-rights-act-that-.php |date=1 August 2013 }}.</ref>

'''Gay rights'''

Liberty intervened in the case of [[Same-sex relationship|gay couple]] Michael Black and John Morgan who were turned away from a [[bed and breakfast]] because of the owner's religious views. On 18 October 2012 it was ruled that the B&B owner was in breach of equality legislation by unlawfully discriminating against the couple on the basis of their [[sexual orientation]]. Liberty's Legal Director James Welch said of the decision "Hopefully today's ruling signals the death knell of such 'no gays' policies – policies that would never be tolerated if they referred to a person's race, gender or religion."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Furness |first1=Hannah |title=Gay couple turned away from B&B win discrimination case |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9617792/Gay-couple-turned-away-from-BandB-win-discrimination-case.html |newspaper=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|location=London |date=18 October 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |title=Liberty victory for B&B discrimination couple |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/press/2012/liberty-victory-for-b-b-discrimination-couple.php |date=18 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130801035442/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/press/2012/liberty-victory-for-b-b-discrimination-couple.php |archive-date=1 August 2013 |access-date=17 January 2013 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== 2015 onwards ===

==== Save our Human Rights Act ====
Immediately following the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 general election]] result, Liberty launched a campaign to save the [[Human Rights Act 1998|Human Rights Act]]. The [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] – which had won a majority – had included a pledge in its manifesto to repeal the Act.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/conservatives-to-push-forward-on-manifesto-and-scrap-human-rights-act|title=Conservatives to push forward on manifesto and scrap Human Rights Act|last=Watt|first=Nicholas|date=2015-05-10|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190417002244/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/conservatives-to-push-forward-on-manifesto-and-scrap-human-rights-act|archive-date=17 April 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> Liberty called this "a knowing attempt by Government ministers to hand itself the right to end the universality of human rights and choose when and to whom they apply".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bella-sankey/human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights_b_7257376.html|title=A British Bill of Rights Will Diminish the Rights of Everyone in the UK - And the Most Vulnerable Will Suffer Most|date=2015-05-11|work=HuffPost UK|first=Bella|last=Sankey|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170104/https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bella-sankey/human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights_b_7257376.html|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 2016, Liberty, [[Amnesty International|Amnesty International UK]] and the British Institute of Human Rights published a statement opposing repeal of the Act, backed by more than 130 organisations including [[Pan Am Flight 103|UK Families Flight 103]], [[Friends of the Earth]], Refuge, [[Quakers in Britain]], [[Stonewall (charity)|Stonewall]], the [[Terrence Higgins Trust]], the [[Down's Syndrome Association]] and the [[Football Supporters' Federation]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/lockerbie-relatives-football-supporters-and-domestic-violence|title=Lockerbie relatives, football supporters and domestic violence survivors among more than 100 groups standing together against Human Rights Act repeal|last=sophiearmour|date=2016-05-18|website=Liberty Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170200/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/lockerbie-relatives-football-supporters-and-domestic-violence|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In July 2015, Liberty coordinated an intervention from a number of former Anti-Apartheid campaigners including [[Njongonkulu Ndungane|Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane]] and [[Denis Goldberg]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/19/south-african-anti-apartheid-heroes-urge-david-cameron-not-to-repeal-human-rights-act|title=Anti-apartheid heroes urge Cameron not to repeal Human Rights Act|last=Townsend|first=Mark|date=2015-07-18|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181109143813/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/19/south-african-anti-apartheid-heroes-urge-david-cameron-not-to-repeal-human-rights-act|archive-date=9 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== The Deepcut inquests ====
Liberty represents the families of three of four young soldiers who died of gunshot wounds at [[Deaths at Deepcut army barracks|Deepcut]] army barracks between 1995 and 2002 – Cheryl James, Sean Benton and James Collinson.<ref name="auto1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/campaigning/soldiers-rights|title=Soldiers' Rights|last=SophieLock|date=2015-11-09|website=Liberty Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04}}</ref> Liberty used the Human Rights Act to compel [[Surrey Police]] to disclose evidence about the deaths to the families, which they were then able to use to apply for fresh inquests.

The second inquest into the death of Cheryl James took place at Woking Coroner's Court from January to April 2016. On 3 June 2016, Coroner [[Brian Barker]] QC recorded a verdict of suicide, delivering a narrative verdict that strongly condemned the culture at Deepcut.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/03/deepcut-barracks-failed-duty-army-recruits-coroner-cheryl-james|title=Cheryl James died from 'self-inflicted shot', Deepcut inquest rules|last=Davies|first=Caroline|date=2016-06-03|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123022419/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/03/deepcut-barracks-failed-duty-army-recruits-coroner-cheryl-james|archive-date=23 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Following the verdict, Liberty called for reform to tackle the "pervasive sexualised culture" in the Armed Forces.

The second inquest into the death of Sean Benton also took place from January to June 2018, also in Woking. On 18 July 2018, Coroner [[Peter Rook|Peter Rook QC]] also recorded a verdict of suicide and again strongly criticised failings at Deepcut and in the Surrey Police investigation.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/deepcut-barracks-sean-benton-inquest-british-army-latest-a8453806.html|title=Private Sean Benton was failed by Army, coroner concludes in Deepcut inquest|work=The Independent|first=Ryan|last= Hooper|author2=Isabel Togoh|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180925030922/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/deepcut-barracks-sean-benton-inquest-british-army-latest-a8453806.html|archive-date=25 September 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> Following the verdict, Liberty and Sean's family called for all serious crimes within the Armed Forces to be investigated by the civilian police, rather than the [[Royal Military Police]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/liberty-calls-civilian-police-investigate-all-military-crimes-0|title=Liberty calls for civilian police to investigate all military crimes after Coroner delivers highly critical verdict in Private Sean Benton inquest|last=sophiearmour|date=2018-07-18|website=Liberty Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170216/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/liberty-calls-civilian-police-investigate-all-military-crimes-0|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement ====
Liberty represented the family of Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement, a Royal Military Police Office who took her own life in 2011 after alleging that she had been raped by two colleagues.<ref name="auto1"/> The allegations were investigated by military police themselves, and no charges were brought.<ref name="auto2">{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-26420252|title=Bullying 'factor in soldier suicide'|date=2014-03-03|publisher=BBC News|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104171531/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-26420252|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

An initial inquest in March 2012 recorded a verdict of suicide, but Anne-Marie's family, represented by Liberty, used the Human Rights Act to secure a second, more thorough inquest. They alleged that Anne-Marie had been bullied and that the Royal Military Police had failed in their duty of care.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-19183015|title=New inquest for 'raped' soldier|date=2012-08-08|publisher=BBC News|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104174600/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-19183015|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

On 3 July 2014, Nicholas Rheinberg – Coroner in the second inquest – ruled that bullying, the lingering effect of the alleged rape and "work-related despair" had contributed to Anne-Marie's suicide.<ref name="auto2"/>

In 2013, Anne-Marie's family, represented by Liberty, also used the threat of legal action under the Human Rights Act to compel the [[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Defence]] and Royal Military Police to agree to refer the Anne-Marie's rape allegations for a fresh, independent investigation. This was carried out by [[Royal Air Force Police|RAF Police]] and [[Bedfordshire Police]], overseen by the [[Crown Prosecution Service]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases/anne-marie-ellement-fresh-investigation-rape-allegation-liberty-launches|title=Anne-Marie Ellement: Fresh investigation into rape allegation as Liberty launches "Military Justice" campaign|last=volunteer|date=2013-07-25|website=Liberty Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170244/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases/anne-marie-ellement-fresh-investigation-rape-allegation-liberty-launches|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

On 29 October 2015, the [[Service Prosecuting Authority]] announced that two former soldiers had been charged with raping Anne-Marie and stated that "the original decision by the SPA not to prosecute was 'wrong'".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11964290/Former-soldiers-charged-with-rape-of-Anne-Marie-Ellement.html|title=Former soldiers charged with rape of Anne-Marie Ellement|last=Farmer|first=Ben|newspaper=The Daily Telegraph|location=London|date=2015-10-29|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|issn=0307-1235|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170157/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11964290/Former-soldiers-charged-with-rape-of-Anne-Marie-Ellement.html|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> The two men were acquitted on 20 April 2016.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36092018|title=Army corporals cleared of barracks rape|date=2016-04-20|publisher=BBC News|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104171648/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36092018|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 2016, the Royal Military Police apologised to Anne-Marie's family for failings and mistakes in the original rape investigation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/19/anne-marie-ellement-royal-military-police-apologise-family-corporal|title=Royal Military Police apologise to family of corporal who killed herself|last=Morris|first=Steven|date=2016-10-19|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104211159/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/19/anne-marie-ellement-royal-military-police-apologise-family-corporal|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 2017, the Ministry of Defence announced it would stop Commanding Officers investigating allegations of sexual assault themselves – a call Liberty had made from Corporal Ellement's 2014 inquest.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/government-scrap-archaic-loophole-lets-armed-forces-commanding|title=Government to scrap archaic loophole that lets Armed Forces Commanding Officers investigate sexual assaults themselves|last=sophiearmour|date=2017-12-13|website=Liberty Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170139/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/government-scrap-archaic-loophole-lets-armed-forces-commanding|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Mass surveillance ====
{{Update|section|reason=[https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/2057.html <nowiki>[2019]</nowiki> EWHC 2057 (Admin)]|date=December 2020}}

Following [[Edward Snowden]]'s whistleblowing in 2013, mass surveillance became a major part of Liberty's work.

Shortly after the revelations, Liberty brought a legal challenge to the UK government's practices with a coalition of other organisations, including [[Amnesty International]], [[Privacy International]] and [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28286105|title=Court hearing GCHQ surveillance case|date=2014-07-14|publisher=BBC News|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104174605/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28286105|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> In September 2018, the [[European Court of Human Rights]] ruled that [[Government Communications Headquarters|GCHQ]]'s bulk interception practices had violated privacy rights and failed to provide sufficient safeguards.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/gchq-data-collection-violated-human-rights-strasbourg-court-rules|title=GCHQ data collection regime violated human rights, court rules|last=Bowcott|first=Owen|date=2018-09-13|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190125095107/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/gchq-data-collection-violated-human-rights-strasbourg-court-rules|archive-date=25 January 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2014, Liberty represented MPs [[David Davis (British politician)|David Davis]] and [[Tom Watson (Labour politician)|Tom Watson]] in a legal challenge to the [[Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014|Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act]] (DRIPA), claiming that it breached privacy rights.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/04/mps-david-davis-and-tom-watson-in-court-challenge-over-surveillance-act|title=MPs David Davis and Tom Watson in court challenge over surveillance act|last=Bowcott|first=Owen|date=2015-06-04|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151113122939/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/04/mps-david-davis-and-tom-watson-in-court-challenge-over-surveillance-act|archive-date=13 November 2015|url-status=live}}</ref> The case was referred to the [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ) by the Court of Appeal, and in December 2016 the ECJ ruled that the general and indiscriminate retention of emails and electronic communications by governments was illegal.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter|title=EU's highest court delivers blow to UK snooper's charter|last=Bowcott|first=Owen|date=2016-12-21|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190203233717/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter|archive-date=3 February 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> In January 2018, the Court of Appeal found DRIPA unlawful.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/uk-mass-digital-surveillance-regime-ruled-unlawful-appeal-ruling-snoopers-charter|title=UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful|last=Travis|first=Alan|date=2018-01-30|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190214013113/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/uk-mass-digital-surveillance-regime-ruled-unlawful-appeal-ruling-snoopers-charter|archive-date=14 February 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite BAILII | litigants = Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson MP & Ors | court = EWCA | division = Civ | year = 2018 | num = 70 | date = 30 January 2018}}</ref>

Throughout 2016, Liberty campaigned against what it believed to be a serious lack of privacy safeguards in the [[Investigatory Powers Bill]]. The Bill passed in November 2016. In January 2017, Liberty launched a crowdfunder to raise funds to challenge the Act in the High Court, raising more than £53,000 in a week.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/snoopers-charter/|title=The People vs the Snoopers' Charter|work=CrowdJustice|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170101/https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/snoopers-charter/|archive-date=4 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

Liberty's challenge to various parts of the Investigatory Powers Act is ongoing. In April 2018, the High Court issued its ruling on the first part of the challenge, giving the government six months to rewrite core parts of the Act, which it found incompatible with EU law.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/27/snoopers-charter-investigatory-powers-act-rewrite-high-court-rules|title=UK has six months to rewrite snooper's charter, high court rules|last=Cobain|first=Ian|date=2018-04-27|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190117074236/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/27/snoopers-charter-investigatory-powers-act-rewrite-high-court-rules|archive-date=17 January 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite BAILII | litigants = The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor | court = EWHC | year = 2018 | num = 975 | date = 27 April 2018}}</ref>

==== Equal pensions for same-sex couples ====
Liberty represented John Walker in a legal challenge to a loophole in the [[Equality Act 2010|Equality Act]] which let employers exempt same-sex spouses from spousal pension benefits. Upon retirement from [[Innospec]], John had discovered that his husband would only receive a few hundred pounds a year. If he were married to a woman, she would have received around £45,000.

In July 2017, the Supreme Court found the loophole unlawful under EU law.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40580596|title=Gay man wins case for equal pension rights|date=2017-07-12|publisher=BBC News|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181105032224/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40580596|archive-date=5 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Hostile environment policies ====
Liberty campaigned against the introduction of the '[[Home Office hostile environment policy|hostile environment]]' policies and has since campaigned for their repeal.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/campaigning/immigration-act-2016|title=Immigration Act 2016|last=LaurenceHolmes|date=2015-11-06|website=Liberty Human Rights|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181105012123/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/campaigning/immigration-act-2016|archive-date=5 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> It has also campaigned against data-sharing arrangements between immigration enforcement and public services including hospitals, schools and police. In August 2017, Liberty exposed that the [[Home Office]] had secretly gained access to nationality data on homeless people in London.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/19/home-office-secret-emails-data-homeless-eu-nationals|title=Home Office used charity data map to deport rough sleepers|last=Townsend|first=Mark|date=2017-08-19|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190128092945/https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/19/home-office-secret-emails-data-homeless-eu-nationals|archive-date=28 January 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Facial recognition ====
In June 2018, Liberty announced it would be representing Cardiff resident Ed Bridges in a legal challenge to South Wales Police's use of facial recognition technology in public spaces.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/14/police-face-legal-action-over-use-of-facial-recognition-cameras|title=Police face legal action over use of facial recognition cameras|last=Bowcott|first=Owen|date=2018-06-14|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=2018-11-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190120051429/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/14/police-face-legal-action-over-use-of-facial-recognition-cameras|archive-date=20 January 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> Liberty argues that the technology "is dangerously inaccurate and has the potential to trample on the freedoms we all take for granted".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/10/the-polices-use-of-facial-recognition-technology-will-affect-our-daily-freedoms-7822753/|title=The police's use of facial recognition technology will affect our daily freedoms|first=Megan|last=Goulding|date=2018-08-10|work=Metro|access-date=2018-11-04|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181105012207/https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/10/the-polices-use-of-facial-recognition-technology-will-affect-our-daily-freedoms-7822753/|archive-date=5 November 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

'''Immigration detention'''

In January 2017, Liberty launched a campaign calling for a 28-day statutory limit on immigration detention in the UK.<ref name="auto"/>

====Rights to protest====
Liberty has a campaign to defend the [[right to protest]], including against new restrictions in the [[Public Order Act 2023]] and related new law.<ref name=liberty-protestrights>{{cite web |url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/fundamental/protest-rights/ |title=Protest rights |website=Liberty |access-date=4 May 2025}}</ref>

It took action against Home Office regulations that sought to redefine certain powers under the [[Public Order Act 1986]], as recently amended by the [[Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022]], to apply to "more than minor" disruption in protests rather than just to "serious disruption".  The Home Office argued that the meaning of "more than minor" was compatible with "serious". In May 2025, the [[Court of Appeal (England and Wales)|Court of Appeal]] ruled that the [[Public Order Act 1986#Amendments|two regulations issued were unlawful]], because these meanings were incompatible.<ref name=reuters-20250502>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-loses-appeal-over-tougher-police-powers-street-protests-2025-05-02/?taid=6814de107e031100014c350e |title=UK loses appeal over tougher police powers for street protests |last=Tobin |first=Sam |publisher=Reuters |url-access=limited |date=2 May 2025 |access-date=4 May 2025}}</ref><ref name=liberty-20250502>{{cite web |url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/liberty-defeats-government-appeal-as-court-rules-anti-protest-laws-are-unlawful/ |title=Liberty defeats Government appeal as Court rules anti-protest laws are unlawful |website=Liberty |date=2 May 2025 |access-date=4 May 2025}}</ref><ref name=appeal-20250502>{{cite web |url=https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Judgment-in-Liberty-v-SSHD-and-others-2-May-2025.pdf |title=King (for National Council for Civil Liberties) -v- Home Secretary |last1=Justice |first1=Lord Underhill |last2=Justice |first2=Lord Dingemans |last3=Justice |first3=Lord Edis |publisher=Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |id=[2025] EWCA Civ 571 / Case CA-2024-001242 |via=Liberty|date=2 May 2025 |access-date=4 May 2025}}</ref>

== Organisation ==

Liberty is both a non-profit company that employs staff and runs campaigns, and a member-based association. Both work closely with the Civil Liberties Trust.  Liberty is divided into three organisations:

* '''Liberty – an unincorporated association'''

A democratically run membership association, which individuals can join.<ref name="Liberty">[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/structure/index.php Liberty] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121103131858/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/structure/index.php |date=3 November 2012 }} | on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk</ref>

* '''Liberty – the company'''

A non-profit company that employs staff and runs campaigns etc. It leases buildings and works closely with the Civil Liberties Trust (see below).<ref name="Liberty"/>

* '''The Civil Liberties Trust'''

The Civil Liberties Trust (CLT) is a registered charity (No. 1024948), independent of Liberty. The CLT has no staff, but commissions Liberty to conduct charitable work such as providing public advice and information, also research, policy work, and litigation.<ref name="libertytrust">[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/civil-liberties-trust/index.php The Civil Liberties Trust] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110164440/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/civil-liberties-trust/index.php |date=10 November 2012 }} | on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk</ref>

== Causes and associations ==
{{Time-context|section|date=July 2018}}
The main issues Liberty is campaigning on, as of 2018, include:

*[[Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom|Mass surveillance]]
* Police use of [[Facial recognition system|facial recognition]] and other intrusive surveillance technology such as [[IMSI-catcher|IMSI catchers]]
* Human rights in the UK after [[Brexit]]
*[[Home Office hostile environment policy|Hostile environment]] policies and public service data-sharing with UK immigration enforcement
* Soldiers' rights, in particularly campaigning for an overhaul of the [[military justice]] system
*[[Immigration detention in the United Kingdom|Immigration detention]]
*[[Public spaces protection order]]s

In addition, Liberty campaigns on a number of 'core' issues that remain constant:

* [[Torture]]
* [[Privacy]]
* [[Freedom of speech|Free speech]]
* [[Equality before the law|Equality]]
* [[Right to protest|Protest rights]]
* [[Law enforcement in the United Kingdom|Policing]]

==General secretaries and directors==
:1932: [[Ronald Kidd]]
:1942: [[Elizabeth A. Allen|Elizabeth Acland Allen]]
:1960: [[Martin Ennals]]
:1966: Tony Smythe
:1973: Martin Loney
:1974: [[Patricia Hewitt]]
:1984: [[Larry Gostin]]
:1985: Sarah Spencer
:1989: Andrew Puddephatt
:1995: John Wadham
:2003: [[Shami Chakrabarti]]
:2016: [[Martha Spurrier]]
:2024: Akiko Hart

==Publications==
Liberty produces briefings on its campaign issues, as well as researching and writing reports on particular areas of human rights and civil liberties.

===Reports===
*[https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/HE%20web.pdf A Guide to the Hostile Environment: The border controls dividing our communities and how we can bring them down] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180421194359/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/HE%20web.pdf |date=21 April 2018 }}. April 2018.
*[https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Bringing%20human%20rights%20home%20-%20Jan%202018.pdf Bringing human rights home? What's at stake for rights in the incorporation of EU law after Brexit] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190915004205/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Bringing%20human%20rights%20home%20-%20Jan%202018.pdf |date=15 September 2019 }}. February 2018.
*[https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Military%20Justice%20-%20Proposals%20for%20a%20fair%20and%20independent%20military%20justice%20system.pdf Military Justice: Proposals for a fair and independent military justice system] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181104170044/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Military%20Justice%20-%20Proposals%20for%20a%20fair%20and%20independent%20military%20justice%20system.pdf |date=4 November 2018 }}. June 2014. {{ISBN|978-0-946088-62-1}}
*[https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/journalist-s-guide-to-the-human-rights-act-january-2011.pdf A Journalist's Guide to the Human Rights Act.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190830044523/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/journalist-s-guide-to-the-human-rights-act-january-2011.pdf |date=30 August 2019 }} January 2011. {{ISBN|978-0-946088-60-7}}
*{{Cite report |date=September 2010 |title=Parliamentarian's Guide to the Human Rights Act |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/parliamentarian-s-guide-to-the-human-rights-act-sept-2010.pdf |isbn=978-0-946088-58-4 }}{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*{{Cite report |date=June 2010 |title=Common Sense - Reflections on the HRA book |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/common-sense-reflections-on-the-hra-book-june-2010.pdf |isbn=978-0-946088-57-7 }}{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*{{Cite report |date=July 2010 |title=Comparative Law Study - Pre-charge Detention |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/comparative-law-study-2010-pre-charge-detention.pdf |access-date=17 January 2013 |archive-date=14 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120314054224/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/comparative-law-study-2010-pre-charge-detention.pdf |url-status=dead }}
*{{Cite report |date=December 2009 |title=a Manifesto for Justice |publisher=the Bar Council |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/a-manifesto-for-justice-december-2009.pdf }}{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*{{Cite report |date=October 2009 |title=Churchill's Legacy - the Conservative Case for the HRA |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/churchill-s-legacy-the-conservative-case-for-the-hra-october-2009.pdf |isbn=978-0-946088-56-0 |access-date=17 January 2013 |archive-date=28 July 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728195113/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/churchill-s-legacy-the-conservative-case-for-the-hra-october-2009.pdf |url-status=dead }}
*{{Cite report |date=December 2007 |title=Overlooked: Surveillance and personal privacy in modern Britain |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/overlooked-privacy-report-december-2007.pdf |access-date=17 January 2013 |archive-date=6 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120806185336/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/overlooked-privacy-report-december-2007.pdf |url-status=dead }}
*{{Cite report |date=May 2007 |title=Setting the record straight: the Dangers of 'Off the Record' Briefings to the Media During Police Counter-Terrorist Operations |url=https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/setting-the-record-straight-off-the-record-briefings-may-2007.pdf }}{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*Litigating the Public Interest, July 2006<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/litigating-the-public-interest-july-2006.pdf Litigating the Public Interest]{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | Liberty, July 2006</ref>
*Twelve Point Terror Package Initial Thoughts, August 2005<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/twelve-point-terror-package-initial-thoughts-august-2005.pdf Twelve Point Terror Package Initial Thoughts] | Liberty, August 2005</ref>
*Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 summary<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/prevention-of-terrorism-act-2005-summary.pdf Prevention of Terrorism Act]{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | Liberty, Summary 2005</ref>
*Impact of Anti-Terror Measures on British Muslims, June 2004<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/impact-of-anti-terror-measures-on-british-muslims-june-2004.pdf Impact of Anti-Terror Measures on British Muslims]{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | Liberty, June 2004</ref>
*ID Card Bill key points, 2004<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/id-card-bill-key-points-2004.pdf ID Card Bill key points]{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | Liberty, December 2004</ref>
*A New 'Suspect Community', October 2003<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/a-new-suspect-community-october-2003.pdf A New 'Suspect Community']{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | Liberty, October 2003</ref>
*Rights of victims of crime, February 2003<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/rights-of-victims-of-crime-february-2003.pdf Rights of victims of crime]{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | Liberty, February 2003</ref>
*Magistrates Court Review, February 2003<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/magistrates-court-review-february-2003.pdf Magistrates Court Review]{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | Liberty, February 2003</ref>
*Casualty of War – Counter Terror Legislation in Rural England, 2003<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/casualty-of-war-counter-terror-legislation-in-rural-england-2003.pdf Casualty of War – Counter Terror Legislation in Rural England]{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | Liberty, 2003</ref>
*An Independent Police Complaints Commission, April 2000<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/an-independent-police-complaints-commission-april-2000.pdf An Independent Police Complaints Commission] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121012135745/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/reports/an-independent-police-complaints-commission-april-2000.pdf |date=12 October 2012 }} | Liberty, April 2000</ref>

===Policy Papers===

Being a cross-party, non-party political organisation, Liberty regularly publishes briefings to MPs and peers, to provide consultation to parliamentary committees and to respond to consultations on issues relating to [[Human rights in the United Kingdom|human rights]] and [[Civil liberties in the United Kingdom|civil liberties in the UK]].<ref>[http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/policy-papers.php Liberty Policy Papers] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110164824/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/policy-papers.php |date=10 November 2012 }} | on www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk</ref>

==See also==
* [[American Civil Liberties Union]], an American equivalent<ref>{{cite news |last1=Weinraub |first1=Judith |title=In Britain a Move Is Afoot To Update Laws on Rape |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/12/13/archives/in-britain-a-move-is-afoot-to-update-laws-on-rape.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=13 December 1975}}</ref>
* [[Civil libertarianism]]
* [[Convention on Modern Liberty]]
* [[NO2ID]]
* [[On Liberty (Chakrabarti book)]]

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

==External links==
*https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk
{{Authority control}}
{{Abortion in the United Kingdom}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Liberty (advocacy group)}}
[[Category:1934 establishments in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups]]
[[Category:Civil rights organisations in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Human rights organisations based in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Organisations based in the City of Westminster]]
[[Category:Organizations established in 1934]]
[[Category:Political advocacy groups in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Political organisations based in London]]