header-logo header-logo

02 August 2007
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

No case for extension of 28-day limit

News

Plans to detain terrorist suspects without charge for more than 28 days should be dropped, a committee of MPs and peers from all parties says.
In a report published this week, Counter-terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 28 days, Intercept and Post-charge Questioning, the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights challenges the case for extension as “unnecessary”.
A “power with such a significant impact on liberty” as the proposed extension requires “clear evidence” that it is justified. However, police evidence showed the extension could only be supported by “precautionary arguments that such a need may arise at some time in the future”, the report states.
The committee recommends that Parliament, not the courts, should decide the upper limit.

Andrew Dismore MP, chairman of the committee, says: “To be removed from your home, your family, your job for 28 days, never mind longer, has a serious impact on your life. We have to be absolutely sure of the need for this. As far as we’ve heard there’s not yet been a case where 28 days was inadequate. This is being proposed on the possibility that it might be in future.”

Eric Metcalfe, director of human rights policy at JUSTICE, says: “At 28 days, the UK already has the longest period of pre-charge detention of any western country. No amount of additional scrutiny by the courts and Parliament can hope to prevent the injustice of an innocent person detained without charge for over a month.”

The committee wants to see improved conditions for the detention of pre-charge suspects and singles out Paddington Green police station as “plainly inadequate”. It says that information classified as “closed material” was often freely available on the internet, but that a lack of Arabic knowledge prevented special advocates from finding this out. However, the committee favours some recent policies, including the government’s review of the use of intercept evidence.

Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll