header-logo header-logo

Pre-charge detention extension attacked

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

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.”

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. 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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll