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

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