Examination of Witness (Questions 340-347)
RT HON
CHARLES CLARKE
MP
21 MARCH 2006
Q340 Chairman: That might be surprising,
Home Secretary. You have very often referred to Lord Carlile's
support for the 90-day detention. We thought it a fairly obvious
question to ask him why he came to that view. You have not specifically
asked him why he came to that view?
Mr Clarke: Not in terms of specific
cases, no. I have a high regard for Lord Carlile. I read his published
reports very carefully and, as I say, I have an exchange of views
from time to time, but I am also conscious, I should say, I do
not particularly want to be thought to be unduly influencing him
in his judgments because actually his independence is an important
aspect of this whole procedure.
Q341 Chairman: We have currently
got a maximum of 14 days. Perhaps it was of some comfort to us,
but neither the Met or ACPO could point to any instances at all
where they believed that they had released somebody who they would
have been able to charge with a terrorism offence had they been
able to detain them longer. Are you aware of any cases where somebody
has been released because they came to the maximum 14 days, where
they really, in your view, could in future be charged with terrorist
offences?
Mr Clarke: No, I am not aware
of any particular case. I am aware of the possibility of such
cases, but I am not aware of any particular case. I considered
it my duty to put before Parliament changes which were looking
to the future rather than changes based on a particular case that
had arisen in the past.
Q342 Chairman: Given that the proposal
for a maximum of 90 days is a very radical change in our judicial
and legal system which the Government is prepared to push ahead
with, can you say a little more about why you are so reluctant
to bring about the more wide-ranging changes in judicial oversight
of the system which you have talked about earlier? I think you
said that we cannot have a more judicial oversight because there
is no consensus in the legal system about this?
Mr Clarke: I did not say I was
reluctant, I simply said there was not consensus and it was difficult
to bring about a change. Mr Denham, you have a well-deserved reputation
for radicalism and challenge and, if your Committee accepted your
lead in this and proposed major changes in this area, I am quite
sure that would be taken very seriously by Parliament, and certainly
as Home Secretary I would say it would be a good thing if that
debate was to be prosecuted.
Q343 Chairman: You obviously believe
that the pre-charge detention is compatible with the European
Convention on Human Rights because you have signed that declaration
on the bill and so on, but a different point has been put to us
that no court is minded to accept as evidence a confession or
information volunteered after somebody had been detained for more
than 14 days. The courts have always been reluctant to take evidence
where people have been detained for a long period of time. Do
you believe that is the right judgment?
Mr Clarke: I do not accept that,
as a matter of fact. A lot of people make assertions about what
courts will or will not do. In fact a very large number of lawyers
are paid very large amounts of money to speculate on what courts
may or may not do in certain circumstances. I prefer to see the
outcome of the courts, and my experience of the courts since I
have been Home Secretary is that they have tried to take the right
decisions based on the balance of evidence in front of them in
accordance with the law, and that is what they will seek to do.
I do not think anybody should presume to prejudge what they would
do in particular circumstances, and I certainly do not. There
are occasions on which I get legal advice which suggests that
the courts will not take a particular act and actually they do
something opposite to what that advice says. That is what the
courts do, and I think that is right. I also think it is the case
that the courts are acutely conscious of their own role in relation
to this counter-terrorism issue. I think they might well have
preferred not to be as involved as they are in some of the processes
which we have here, and there are issues for them in that, but
I see absolutely no evidence that the courts will not (a) take
it very seriously and (b) look at any evidence that arises in
the way you have described very seriously. It is possible, as
you say, that when they do so they would not accept evidence based
on detention for longer than 14 days, but it is only possible
and I certainly do not assume that that would be the case.
Q344 Mr Winnick: Home Secretary,
in your reply to a question from my colleague, Mr Malik, you made,
rightly of course, the point that one should not associate Muslims
with terrorism any more than in the past one associated the Irish
with the murderous attacks which were made upon us over 30 years,
recognising, of course, that Muslims are quite as likely to be
the victims of terrorism as the rest of us, as was shown by what
happened on 7 July. The question I want to ask you is: do you
know of any representative Muslim organisations which support
90 days detention?
Mr Clarke: I am not aware of any
off-hand, but I would need to double check my answer to you, Mr
Winnick. [2]Certainly
the main one, the Muslim Council of Britain, opposed it.
Q345 Mr Winnick: I am a bit surprised
when you say you do not know of any off-hand. I would have thought,
if you did know of any, you would have used that as supporting
evidence in the Chamber and obviously now?
Mr Clarke: I would need to go
back to my speeches in the Chamber, which is something I sometimes
do late at night for relaxation.
Q346 Mr Spring: So do we!
Mr Clarke: I am not sure whether
Mr Spring is saying he is going back to his own speeches or back
to my speeches! I do not recall in general, with the important
exception of the police and security services, relying on support
from particular bodies of opinion in making the case I sought
to make the argument on its own terms but I will go back and look
at the particular point.
Q347 Mr Winnick: It is an important
point. If we all accept that the overwhelming majority of Muslims
are as much opposed to terrorism as we are, if there were mainstream
organisations representing Muslims one would have thought they
would let you know, broadly speaking, that they are supportive
of what you intended to do.
Mr Clarke: Again, some of the
mainstream Muslim organisations are concerned principally with
the standing, status and the issues facing the Muslim community
in this country of which terrorism is only one. It is not even
central to some organisations.
Chairman: Home Secretary, thank you very
much indeed for the clarity and the comprehensiveness of your
answers.
2 Ev 102 Back
| 
