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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll