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Control orders will be repealed, although the home secretary will continue to be able to impose restrictions on suspects’ movement, association and travel on the basis of “reasonable belief”.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

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll