header-logo header-logo

01 February 2008
Issue: 7306 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Procedure & practice , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Pre-charge detention extension attacked

Measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to further extend pre-charge detention in terrorism cases lack safeguards, human rights groups claim.

Measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to further extend pre-charge detention in terrorism cases lack safeguards, human rights groups claim.

The Bill would allow the home secretary to extend pre-charge detention for up to 42 days in terrorism cases, subject to a prior recommendation by the director of public prosecutions. However, Eric Metcalfe, JUSTICE’s director of human rights policy, says that although the Bill contains provision for subsequent debate by Parliament, there is nothing to prevent the home secretary extending the maximum period of detention to 42 days without prior Parliamentary or judicial approval.

Metcalfe says: “Scrutiny is no safeguard when there’s no evidence to scrutinise. Nor can scrutiny prevent the injustice of being held without evidence for 42 days. Phoney safeguards and a lack of evidence are no way to fight terrorism.”

Liberty has called for alternatives to the extension of precharge detention, such as the use of post-charge questioning and allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions. Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti says: “The government is right to abandon the divisive rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’, but it must now abandon the counterproductive policies that went with it. Despite ministerial promises of exceptional circumstances and so-called safeguards, the reality of this Bill is an on-off button for six weeks’ detention without charge.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll