header-logo header-logo

02 February 2011
Issue: 7451 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Terror detention halved

Council snoops out in new “control orders-lite” plan

The maximum length of time terror suspects can be detained without being charged is to be reduced from 28 days to 14, the Home Office has announced.

Section 44 “stop and search” powers will be replaced by narrower powers allowing a senior police officer to authorise stop and search where they have reason to suspect a terrorist attack and searches are necessary to prevent it.
Control orders will be repealed, although the home secretary will continue to be able to impose restrictions on suspects’ movement, association and travel on the basis of “reasonable belief”.

The annual requirement to review counter-terrorism laws has been dropped.
Local authorities will see their surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act restricted to serious offences that carry a six-month jail sentence and where a magistrate has authorised their use, putting an end to council snooping. Last year, Poole Council was ruled to have unlawfully spied on a family to check they lived within the school catchment area.

The changes are part of a package of reforms announced by the Home Office last week following its review of counter-terrorism powers.
Civil liberties groups have welcomed the review, but questioned the need for continued restrictions on suspects who have not been charged with a criminal offence.

Liberty branded the control orders replacement “control order-lite”. Its director, Shami Chakrabarti says: “We welcome movement on stop and search, 28-day detention and council snooping, but when it comes to ending punishment without trial, the government appears to have bottled it.

“Spin and semantics aside, control orders are retained and rebranded, if in a slightly lower fat form. As before, the innocent may be punished without a fair hearing and the guilty will escape the full force of criminal law.”

Eric Metcalfe, Justice’s director of human rights policy, says: “Criminal prosecution remains the only just and effective way of dealing with suspected terrorists.

“Seven men absconded under the control order regime. It seems even less likely that any serious terrorist would be stopped by the watered-down version announced today.”

Issue: 7451 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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