header-logo header-logo

Prolonged detention

13 September 2007 / Julian Samiloff
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Extending the period for detention without trial or charge for suspected terrorists would unjustifiably erode civil liberties, says Julian Samiloff

The Brown government says that the risk of terrorist atrocities is so serious that people can be detained on mere suspicion and held in custody, although by the time the police need to charge or release their suspects, currently 28 days, there is not enough sufficiently cogent evidence available to charge them. 

The government is arguing for an extended detention period, saying that detention needs to be longer because terrorism is of global proportions, and thousands of suspects, sympathisers and identified terror groups—many of which, it is said, are actively preparing for a terror attack—need to be and are being kept under surveillance. It is said that these suspects are too dangerous to release pending investigations, and they must not be released to commit or help commit terror atrocities. Interestingly, the security forces somehow “know” that the terrorist suspects are involved in terror activities and yet they are not able to overcome the threshold charging test for prosecutors.

The state does have the responsibility to

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

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