header-logo header-logo

Terrorising the innocent

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

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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll