Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-74)
DR ERIC
METCALFE, MS
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI,
MS GARETH
PEIRCE AND
MR TIM
OWEN QC
7 FEBRUARY 2006
Q60 Chairman: Just out of interest,
can I ask how many firms of solicitors, or perhaps how many individual
solicitors, would you say have some specialism in this area of
law?
Ms Peirce: I think, probably more
than I would know, in the sense, there is a duty solicitor scheme
and I would have thought at least half, and probably more, I am
only guessing, of people detained under any terrorism legislation
would ask for the duty solicitor, would not know a solicitor.
However, rather like the case of the Irish community, as it becomes
more the position that it is a suspect community, in a sense,
so the Muslim community in this country is aware that it is a
suspect community and people who have no reason to worry about
the law begin to think they ought to have a solicitor's number,
and their families do. You get to a position where if someone
is arrested people in that community will be ringing each other
to know if there is someone who has some relevant experience.
I would have thought there is a reasonable number of firms which
are within that range of familiarity, in the most general terms,
but they are not necessarily firms that will be called in the
police station. If a person asks for a duty solicitor and there
is a solicitor in place, even if the family have asked subsequently
for a named solicitor, that solicitor will already be embedded,
so to speak, in the police station, the duty solicitor, and will
continue with the interviews.
Q61 Gwyn Prosser: Ms Chakrabarti,
in cases where a detainee has chosen one specific solicitor and
that person is not always available, you have made a tentative
suggestion that there might be scope for stopping the clock. How
practical would that be and how could we avoid even that process
being described as an abuse?
Ms Chakrabarti: Actually, I have
been rather heartened by Ms Peirce's practical insight. Remember,
of course, that I do not spend time in Paddington Green, not yet,
until new speech offences put me there, but at the moment I am
not in Paddington Green. If I am detained in Paddington Green,
I am probably going to `phone Ms Peirce or Ms Christian. Ms Peirce
was saying that solicitors have professional obligations and if
they cannot meet them, and the fact that they are going to act
in this interesting case means it is almost going to be floundering
in custody, unrepresented, then they should not represent them.
You see already, just through professional ethics, a much more
proportionate response to the idea that you have to lock people
up for longer periods because everybody wants to be represented
by whoever it happens to be. In my case, probably it would be
Ms Peirce. I do not even wholeheartedly support this suggestion.
We mentioned this clock-stopping scenario just to highlight the
fact that we approach this in good faith and the police dossier
does not even explore any more proportionate alternative to the
problems that they raise within this extended detention. I think
there would be real difficulties with scenarios where the clock
stopped because you insisted on Ms Peirce, and it would require
a great deal of safeguard, but it would certainly be more proportionate
than what ended up being the police proposal. I think Ms Peirce
gave the best answer. If a firm cannot provide the representation,
if an individual celebrity solicitor cannot do all the work, they
have professional obligations to say so.
Ms Peirce: There are occasions
when there is more than one person in a police station asking
if a particular firm can represent them, and they or their families
think that is the guarantee that they will be represented correctly.
If you cannot, sometimes you will talk to that person and say,
"I cannot. There are three solicitors, we are able to go
to the police station, we cannot represent a fourth person,"
over however many days it can be, "we cannot do it; but I
would be very happy to give you the names of two or three firms
which I think have relevant experience." I do that, I do
that often, and I do it not just in London but people could ring
from a police station in Liverpool or Manchester and I would say,
"This is who I suggest you might have." I do not accept
this police example which is given.
Q62 Gwyn Prosser: Ms Peirce, you
have told us this afternoon that very often there is no interview
or proper contact for the first 48 hours, and then when the interview
starts it is very perfunctory, it is "What's your name; where
do you come from?" etc. You have given us that, in anecdotal
terms, of course. How precise can you be? What proportion of cases
that you see, for instance, in Paddington Green Police Station,
follows that pattern?
Ms Peirce: Over 25 years, or whatever,
I would say 90% of the interviews have followed that particular
pattern. If it is of assistance to the Committee, I will try,
within my office, to go back and take perhaps 10 sample cases
and try to quantify it more particularly; but that is a pattern,
the police will tell you they have that methodology, I am sure.
Q63 Chairman: That would be enormously
helpful, if you could do that, and could you expand a little in
your search, I think you have just touched on the same point,
that this appears to be part of the deliberate approach of the
counter-terrorist section of the police?
Ms Peirce: Indeed; yes.
Q64 Chairman: Have you explored with
them at any time why they adopt this approach, which now, in other
cases, they are citing as evidence for needing more detention?
Ms Peirce: Although part of the
rationale is, if you have 10 people in custody, it is rare that
it is that number, that perhaps if there is a suspicion that they
want to progress in unison through the interviews to compare answers,
but I do not think it is that. I do not know, is the answer. They
have not ever given me an answer that is satisfactory. You could
go 100% quicker with all of the basic questions than they do.
Q65 Chairman: Over the time that
you have been practising, the period of detention without charge
has been extended. Is it your sense that this fallow period, before
anything is done, has grown as the maximum period of extension
has been increased, or has it always been there, even when the
ability to detain without charge was much shorter?
Ms Peirce: It has always been
there. May I give you just one comment on the ricin case, since
Mr Hayman has referred to it. I will try to do an exact analysis
of all the people detained within that inquiry, but that was a
seven-day period still, it had not gone to 14 days, and, for those
individuals who were represented, who were not always arrested
at the same time, over a certain period, it was less than seven
days that was used before charging. This is why I find it not
convincing to say ricin is an example where you need 28 or 90
days; they did not use even the seven days. Two people charged
with that case, both of whom were acquitted, were never interviewed
in relation to the ricin conspiracy; they were charged with it,
they were already in prison charged with a different offence,
and they were never interviewed, they were simply charged with
ricin, never interviewed. This was a point which was made to the
judges, made to the jury; absolutely extraordinary that was the
case.
Q66 Mr Winnick: That was covered
in your article, was it not, Ms Peirce, ricin?
Ms Peirce: Not quite. I was referring
to the claim that the case was lost basically because the main
suspect was bailed. However, that suspect was bailed after a day
and a half in the police station and it was not the first time
he had been arrested and bailed within the same time period. It
was no justification for extended detention.
Q67 Gwyn Prosser: On the same theme,
of the use of time at Paddington Green Police Station, you have
made the assertion that up to 90% of the time a person is in custody
is not used in any sort of productive interviewing, so, in a 14-day
detention, less than a day and a half perhaps actually is interviewing.
Can you give us evidence for that assertion, when you write to
us about the other matters?
Ms Peirce: Yes. I think what might
be of use to you is if I give you a sample custody record, with
the name taken out, so that you can see for yourselves the periods
of time.
Gwyn Prosser: That will be very helpful.
Thank you very much.
Q68 Chairman: That will be very,
very helpful indeed; thank you. Just a few last questions. The
problem with only two interview rooms at Paddington Green.
Ms Peirce: They seemed to have
another one, the last time I went.
Chairman: There are now three.
Mr Winnick: They knew you were going
to give evidence today.
Q69 Chairman: Do you have any sense—and
this may be not an easy question, of course—of how many
need to be available at least to cover 90% of the situations which
arise, so that the interview rooms themselves would not be a delay,
with this picture of the Edgware Road being full of lawyers drinking
coffee which you paint in your submission?
Ms Peirce: I do not know. I think
there are occasions when there are a lot of detainees, but even
if there are, say, five at a time it is not a good place, for
a range of reasons. They have used a room where a solicitor could
have a conference with their client, apart from interview, for
an interrogation room, so to speak, with a video, so it is robbing
Peter to pay Paul. I think the police would tell you, who work
there, that they find it a very bad working environment. They
do not like being there for seven or 14 days. Those who are interviewing,
it is not good; the interpreters are in poor conditions. If it
were possible, in your inquiry, to go to Paddington Green and
go into one of the cells and just see; there is no natural light,
no proper heating, no proper ventilation, and it is a bad environment
for seven days.
Q70 Chairman: Can I ask each of the
witnesses to concentrate, if you could, just on this specific
point of practical issues that have arisen in the course of questions;
are there any others that you would like to stress to the Committee
that we have not touched on already this afternoon, or have we
covered the main, practical, organisational questions that have
arisen?
Mr Owen: I think so, yes. I have
got nothing to add.
Ms Peirce: No; thank you very
much.
Dr Metcalfe: No.
Ms Chakrabarti: No.
Q71 Chairman: One final question,
just to put to you a point that Lord Carlile has made. He argued,
in fact, actually in support of your position, he said that delays
in interviewing suspects are not a justification for extending
pre-charge detention, because he said that most suspects will
exercise their right to silence. Is that a true observation, in
your experience? I do not think he defined what `most' was. Do
a significant number of suspects exercise the right to silence,
or is that more unusual?
Ms Peirce: Probably a significant
number are advised to, in part because you do not know what it
is the person is there for, and therefore you are struggling.
You say, "I don't think you should launch into answering
questions," particularly if you have concerns that the person
you are representing is not necessarily very articulate, may not
be completely understanding of what is going on, or may be very
frightened. You say, "Please, let's just wait until we find
out why you've been arrested," which could be days along
the line, "and then we can sensibly say is there something
you should be answering." The wastage of time, in fact, before
you know what you are there for, probably is a factor in prolonging
"no comment" situations. The sooner you knew, the sooner
you and your lawyer could decide whether it would be appropriate
for you to answer, but then the longer the time goes on the more
exhausted the detainee gets and is less able to answer questions
to do justice to themselves.
Chairman: Thank you. That is very helpful.
Q72 Mr Winnick: To pick up just one
comment that you made, Ms Peirce. You referred a few moments ago
to a "suspect community," referring obviously to the
Muslim community. I am not suggesting you were making implications
against the police, but would it not be the case that when the
IRA were committing their atrocities on the mainland it would
have been rather foolish, to say the least, for the police to
be looking into the Muslim community for the culprit? If that
were the case, as obviously it would be, because they knew who
were responsible, as an organisation, surely now, since ceasefire
by the IRA and bearing in mind the suicides attacks of July 7,
does it not make sense for the police to be looking for the obvious
people within the Muslim community, however unrepresentative those
people are, as we know they are, of the vast majority of Muslims
living in Britain, who are no less lawful and law-abiding than
ourselves?
Ms Peirce: My comment was not
directed to the police, it was in answer to a question as to whether
certain firms of solicitors' names were circulated.
Q73 Mr Winnick: I understand that,
but then you used that term and I am just trying to get an explanation
from you?
Ms Peirce: I have to say that
my experience is identical, in terms of the innocent, wider community
and its apprehensions. What was the Irish community with apprehensions
now has become the Muslim community in this country and people
have a real fear that they could be arrested when they have done
nothing wrong.
Q74 Mr Winnick: I understand that
and that the Irish community, again, the overwhelming majority,
like the Muslim community, perfectly law-abiding, had nothing
to do with the mass murderers, and it is important, as you say,
to bear in mind, which both you and I agree on. Inevitably though
when you are looking at suicide bombings and those who want to
commit such further atrocities then the police have no alternative
but to look within that community for those who are carrying out
the attacks which occur?
Ms Peirce: I think, just my own
comment, having represented individuals in the Muslim community
since 1997, before British young Muslims became a suspect community,
a huge number of individuals in the refugee community became apprehensive
that they were suspects for terrorism, and were not. That was
not a happy progression of suspicion and I think led to a number
of real, real difficulties in our criminal justice system.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I think
that is a good point on which to end. Can I thank all four of
you very much indeed; you have got the inquiry off to a good start
and raised a number of issues that we will want to put to other
witnesses in the subsequent sessions. Thank you very much indeed.
|
