header-logo header-logo

Pre-charge detention extension attacked

01 February 2008
Issue: 7306 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Procedure & practice , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to further extend pre-charge detention in terrorism cases lack safeguards, human rights groups claim.

Measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to further extend pre-charge detention in terrorism cases lack safeguards, human rights groups claim.

The Bill would allow the home secretary to extend pre-charge detention for up to 42 days in terrorism cases, subject to a prior recommendation by the director of public prosecutions. However, Eric Metcalfe, JUSTICE’s director of human rights policy, says that although the Bill contains provision for subsequent debate by Parliament, there is nothing to prevent the home secretary extending the maximum period of detention to 42 days without prior Parliamentary or judicial approval.

Metcalfe says: “Scrutiny is no safeguard when there’s no evidence to scrutinise. Nor can scrutiny prevent the injustice of being held without evidence for 42 days. Phoney safeguards and a lack of evidence are no way to fight terrorism.”

Liberty has called for alternatives to the extension of precharge detention, such as the use of post-charge questioning and allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions. Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti says: “The government is right to abandon the divisive rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’, but it must now abandon the counterproductive policies that went with it. Despite ministerial promises of exceptional circumstances and so-called safeguards, the reality of this Bill is an on-off button for six weeks’ detention without charge.”

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