header-logo header-logo

01 April 2010 / Beth O’reilly , Ali Naseem Bajwa
Issue: 7411 & 7412 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Terrorising the innocent

The government should heed advice to reduce terrorism detention, Ali Naseem Bajwa & Beth O’Reilly

The last decade has seen investigators being granted a wave of new and wide-ranging powers to counter the modern terrorism threat. Among the expansion of powers was a significant increase in the terrorism pre-charge detention limit. However, a case study of Operation Overt, the “Heathrow” or “airline liquid bomb case”, graphically illustrates the flaws in extended terrorism detention and the danger it poses to innocent suspects.

When the Terrorism Act 2000 was introduced, the limit on terrorism pre-charge detention was seven days. This was increased in 2003 to 14 days. In 2006, a government proposal to increase it to 90 days was defeated but a compromise of 28 days was passed. In 2008, the government sought yet again to increase the limit to 42 days but was forced to abandon its plans following a heavy defeat in the House of Lords. Not to be deterred, the government shifted the 42-day provision to the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary

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