header-logo header-logo

02 August 2007
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

No case for extension of 28-day limit

News

Plans to detain terrorist suspects without charge for more than 28 days should be dropped, a committee of MPs and peers from all parties says.
In a report published this week, Counter-terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 28 days, Intercept and Post-charge Questioning, the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights challenges the case for extension as “unnecessary”.
A “power with such a significant impact on liberty” as the proposed extension requires “clear evidence” that it is justified. However, police evidence showed the extension could only be supported by “precautionary arguments that such a need may arise at some time in the future”, the report states.
The committee recommends that Parliament, not the courts, should decide the upper limit.

Andrew Dismore MP, chairman of the committee, says: “To be removed from your home, your family, your job for 28 days, never mind longer, has a serious impact on your life. We have to be absolutely sure of the need for this. As far as we’ve heard there’s not yet been a case where 28 days was inadequate. This is being proposed on the possibility that it might be in future.”

Eric Metcalfe, director of human rights policy at JUSTICE, says: “At 28 days, the UK already has the longest period of pre-charge detention of any western country. No amount of additional scrutiny by the courts and Parliament can hope to prevent the injustice of an innocent person detained without charge for over a month.”

The committee wants to see improved conditions for the detention of pre-charge suspects and singles out Paddington Green police station as “plainly inadequate”. It says that information classified as “closed material” was often freely available on the internet, but that a lack of Arabic knowledge prevented special advocates from finding this out. However, the committee favours some recent policies, including the government’s review of the use of intercept evidence.

Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Haynes Boone—Louise Woods

Haynes Boone—Louise Woods

Haynes Boone expands global capabilities with addition of Louise Woods as chair of international disputes

DWF—John Gilfedder

DWF—John Gilfedder

DWF strengthens Global Risks practice with strategic hire of aviation partner in London

Shakespeare Martineau—10 newly qualified solicitors

Shakespeare Martineau—10 newly qualified solicitors

Shakespeare Martineau appoints newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The Thirlwall Inquiry has exposed a ‘complete failure’ to protect babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, but its recommendations must now be put into practice
A divorced woman has secured funding to participate in her former husband’s inquest after the Legal Aid Agency reconsidered repeated refusals
More than 500 former rugby players can pursue brain injury claims despite serious failures to disclose documents ordered by the High Court
When does a solicitor’s retainer become a contentious business agreement? The Court of Appeal’s decision in Broadfield Law UK LLP v Barnes shows that listing hourly rates alone will not do, leaving firms and clients uncertain about their rights over bills
MPs cannot simply resign their Commons seats. Instead, they take a nominal Crown office, usually the Chiltern Hundreds or Manor of Northstead, which disqualifies them from sitting
back-to-top-scroll