header-logo header-logo

Prolonged detention

13 September 2007 / Julian Samiloff
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Extending the period for detention without trial or charge for suspected terrorists would unjustifiably erode civil liberties, says Julian Samiloff

The Brown government says that the risk of terrorist atrocities is so serious that people can be detained on mere suspicion and held in custody, although by the time the police need to charge or release their suspects, currently 28 days, there is not enough sufficiently cogent evidence available to charge them. 

The government is arguing for an extended detention period, saying that detention needs to be longer because terrorism is of global proportions, and thousands of suspects, sympathisers and identified terror groups—many of which, it is said, are actively preparing for a terror attack—need to be and are being kept under surveillance. It is said that these suspects are too dangerous to release pending investigations, and they must not be released to commit or help commit terror atrocities. Interestingly, the security forces somehow “know” that the terrorist suspects are involved in terror activities and yet they are not able to overcome the threshold charging test

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll