|
It is clear both from the evidence given to us and from other sources, such as the speech made by the Head of the Security Service to the Society of Editors on 5 November 2007 that the terrorist threat facing the UK is real, acute and growing. Therefore, any request by the police authorities to extend the maximum period for which terrorist suspects can be held without charge has to be treated with great seriousness.
However, neither the police nor the Government has made a convincing case that the current limit of 28 days is inadequate at this time.
In our Report last year, we said that the current limit might prove inadequate in future. Both the Home Secretary and more particularly the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said that they could foresee circumstances where an extension would be necessary. We also note that some of those opposing an extension at present, such as the Opposition Spokesmen and Lord Goldsmith, did not rule out the possibility that an extension might be needed in the future.
We considered the proposal from Liberty, that Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) 2004 could be used in exceptional circumstances where the complexity of the suspected terrorist plots was likely to overwhelm the capacity of the police and security services. However, we concluded that this was not an intended use of the powers under the CCA, that there were significant legal problems and that it would not be sensible for a national state of emergency to be triggered in the middle of a major investigation.
If, in these exceptional circumstances, a temporary extension of the pre-charge detention period is deemed essential to secure successful prosecutions of terrorist suspects, the Government should consider building support for proposals that effectively reform the powers of the CCA, secure Parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight, but stop short of the requirement to declare a full-scale state of emergency. We urge the Government to begin urgent discussions with other parties on this basis.
We also recommend that the law is changed to allow the use in court of intercept evidence obtained by UK security agencies; that the police should be allowed to continue to question suspects after charge, and that inferences could be drawn from any refusal by suspects to answer such questions.
| 
