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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll