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 Provisions) Bill, which lies in the Library of the House

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