header-logo header-logo

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

Prolonged detention

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

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