Joint Committee On Human Rights Nineteenth Report


2  Length of pre-charge detention

The Government's current position

15. The law on pre-charge detention was one of the specific areas which the former Home Secretary in his recent statement indicated the forthcoming counter-terrorism bill might seek to strengthen.[10] He said that the decision to increase pre-charge detention limits from 14 to 28 days has been justified by subsequent events and has enabled prosecutions to be brought forward that "otherwise may not have been possible." The Government believes it is right to extend the limit beyond 28 days in terrorist cases, but wants to build "broad agreement" on the way forward, and to this end has indicated that it wants to begin discussions now on how to do this. One possible way mentioned by the former Home Secretary would be to legislate now to extend the current 28 day limit but to make it clear that there would be further judicial and parliamentary oversight, such as a detailed annual report to Parliament with an accompanying debate.

16. The Prime Minister has also suggested, in a number of speeches and interviews, that the extension of the limit on pre-charge detention beyond the current limit of 28 days is one of the counter-terrorism measures the Government will be considering, and that any increase must be accompanied by "proper judicial scrutiny" and increased parliamentary accountability.

Developments since the increase to 28 days

17. In our report on Prosecution and Pre-Charge Detention in 2006, we gave detailed consideration to alternatives to lengthy pre-charge detention and concluded that "a combination of the flexibility introduced by the threshold test developed by the CPS, active judicial oversight of the application of the post-charge timetable, and the possibility of drawing adverse inferences from a refusal to answer questions at a post-charge interview should make it unnecessary to contemplate any further extensions to the maximum period of pre-charge detention of 28 days."[11]

18. In the Government's September 2006 response to the Committee's report, the Government said that the new maximum period of 28 days pre-charge detention had only been in place since the end of July 2006 and it would wish to see how it was working in practice, and it would be keeping the situation under review.[12] We welcome the Government's confirmation that it has no plans to amend the Terrorism Act 2000 to include 'prevention' in the statutory grounds for detention, as the Home Affairs Committee had recommended, because the Government considers that this would not be permissible under Article 5(1) of the ECHR.[13]

19. On 11 November 2006 the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, in a speech to the Urban Age Summit in Berlin, expressed the view that the question of a further extension beyond 28 days would soon have to be considered. He said:

"For other serious crimes, British police can but rarely do hold suspects for up to four days. After long and very heated parliamentary debates, that has currently been changed in Britain to 28 days in terrorist cases. Of course, whether it is 28, 4 or 1, suspects have access to full legal advice in custody. In the recent alleged airline plot, we needed all the 28 days in respect of some of the 24 suspects: if there had been more people, we would probably have run out of time. I believe that an extension to the 28 days time for detention will have to be examined again in the near future."

20. On 20 November 2006 we wrote to the Commissioner indicating that we would be giving very careful scrutiny to whether there is any evidence that a further extension to the period of pre-charge detention is necessary.[14] We asked for a detailed analysis of the way in which each of the 24 suspects arrested on 10 August 2006 had been dealt with, in order to be able to assess whether the experience of dealing with those suspects provides evidence for or against the need for a further extension of the 28 day period.

21. In the meantime, on 1 February 2007 the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman ("PMOS") briefed the press that the Home Secretary had told Cabinet that he would be trying to persuade the public and Parliament that 28 days' pre-charge detention was not enough and that "going further would be a useful tool in the counter-terrorism effort." The PMOS said that "the initiative to raise the subject for discussion again had come from the police, not the Government."

22. On 2 February 2007 we received a response from the Commissioner to our letter written in November 2006.[15] On pre-charge detention the Commissioner's letter says:

"The MPS welcomed recent legislative changes that enabled suspects to be detained for up to 28 days without charge. The MPS is not requesting that this period be extended; this is a matter for Parliament. There is currently no direct evidence to support an increase in detention without charge beyond 28 days, however, the complexity and scale of the global terrorist challenge, sophisticated use of technology, protracted nature of forensic retrieval and potential for multiple operations may lead to circumstances in which 28 days could become insufficient.

The speed with which terrorist conspiracies have increased in number, in the gravity of their ambition and the number of conspirators suggests that a pragmatic inference can be drawn that 28 days may not be enough at some time in the near future."

23. The letter from the Commissioner also included a detailed analysis of the way in which the 24 suspects arrested on 10 August 2006 in connection with the alleged airline bomb plot were dealt with. We return to this important subject in more detail below. In short, the analysis shows that a total of 9 suspects were detained without charge for more than 14 days under the new provisions, of whom 6 were charged with an offence and 3 released without charge.

24. In June 2007 the Home Secretary laid before Parliament Lord Carlile's annual report on the operation in 2006 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (including the operation of the extended pre-charge detention regime).[16] Observing that the adequacy of the extended period remains the subject of heated and frequent debate, Lord Carlile reports that he expects in the course of time to see cases in which the current maximum of 28 days will be proved inadequate, but he has seen no such cases since the increase to 28 days.[17] Commenting on the adequacy of the judicial safeguards, he notes that senior circuit judges supervise 14-28 day detentions and that "these responsibilities too have been tested extensively in the past year, and have proved fit for purpose."[18]

25. The 2006 Act provides for annual renewal of the provisions in the Terrorism Act 2006 which extend the period of pre-charge detention from 14 to 28 days.[19] Under that section, the maximum period of pre-charge detention under the Terrorism Act would have been reduced from 28 to 14 days on 25 July 2007 (one year after the extended period was brought into force) unless a renewal order was passed by both Houses. On 11 June 2007, Tony McNulty MP laid the draft order to renew the extension of the maximum period.[20] On 10 July 2007 the draft Order was approved by the House of Commons.[21] The draft Order is due to be debated in the House of Lords on Tuesday 24 July 2007.

26. Since the renewal of the extension to 28 days, there has been renewed pressure to extend the period even further. On 15 July 2007 the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers ("ACPO"), Ken Jones, was reported as having said "We are now arguing for judicially supervised detention for as long as it takes. We are up against the buffers on the 28 day limit. We understand people will be concerned and nervous, but we need to create a system with sufficient judicial checks and balances which holds people, but no long than a day [more than] necessary."[22] He said that, with hindsight, the police should not have got involved in the debate about the precise number of days of pre-charge detention, but should have said that what is needed is an extraordinary mechanism to give the police the ability to investigate these complex cases under judicial supervision.

27. The call for a further extension was promptly supported by the statutory reviewer of the operation of the terrorism legislation and the Government's Security Minister, Lord West of Spithead. On 16 July 2007, Lord Carlile said that senior judges, not politicians, should set the limit. Rather than have a "completely sterile" debate about an arbitrary number of days, he said it would be better if senior judges, who have a great deal of experience in analysing evidence, should monitor individual detention periods, which would be subject to appeal.[23] Lord West also said that the scale and complexity of the threat meant police would need longer to question suspects, and that he could see "great attractions" in Lord Carlile's proposal.[24]

28. In our view the current debate about whether there should be a further extension of the period of pre-charge detention beyond 28 days raises five main questions:

—  (1) Has the increase from 14 to 28 days been shown to be justified by subsequent events?

—  (2) Is there evidence of a need to extend the limit beyond 28 days?

—  (3) Why does the UK need a period longer than any comparable democracy?

—  (4) Are the current judicial safeguards adequate?

—  (5) Are the current arrangements for parliamentary review adequate?

Has the increase from 14 to 28 days been shown to be justified?

29. The Government's view is that the increase from 14 to 28 days has been "justified by subsequent events" and has enabled prosecutions to be brought that "otherwise may not have been possible". We take this to be a reference to the fact that 6 of the suspects charged with offences in connection with the alleged airline bomb plot uncovered in August 2006 were charged after having been detained for more than 14 days. In the recent debate on the renewal of the extension to 28 days, the Minister, Tony McNulty MP, said "the alleged plots since that time have substantiated the position on 28 days".[25]

30. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is of the same view, commenting in his Berlin speech that "in the recent alleged airline plot, we needed all the 28 days in respect of some of the 24 suspects".[26]

31. We are not in a position to contradict either the Government or the Commissioner in their view that subsequent events have demonstrated the necessity for extending the maximum period of pre-charge detention from 14 to 28 days, and we do not seek to do so when we do not have the necessary information to make that assessment. We do, however, have some observations to make about the extent to which there has been rigorous independent scrutiny of the operation in practice of the extended pre-charge detention provisions since they were brought into force in July 2006.

32. The purpose of including in the Terrorism Act 2006 a requirement that there be annual renewal of the extension of pre-charge detention from 14 to 28 days[27] was to provide Parliament with the opportunity to consider the matter again after the power had been in operation for a year. For such parliamentary review to be meaningful, however, it must be informed by a thorough, detailed and independent review of how the power has been operating in practice. In our view, such rigorous independent scrutiny of the need for more than 14 days' pre-charge detention requires detailed examination of the actual cases in which the power of extended detention has been exercised. It requires a number of detailed questions to be asked and a careful analysis undertaken of whether the use of the new power in fact demonstrates its necessity.

33. In our Chair's letter to the Commissioner in November 2006[28] we asked to be provided with a thorough analysis of the way in which each of the 24 suspects arrested in connection with the alleged airline bomb plot were dealt with, including precisely when they were charged or released without charge, the reasons relied on at each application to a court for an extension of authorisation for detention, and the exact charges brought against those charged. We also asked to be supplied with detailed statistics showing for how long all suspects who have been arrested under terrorism powers have been held before being either released or charged since 25 July 2006, when the new 28 day period came into force.

34. We are grateful to the Commissioner for providing the detailed information showing the way in which the 24 suspects arrested in August 2006 in connection with the alleged airline bomb plot were dealt with.[29] The information provided details of the exact length of time each suspect was detained; whether a charge was brought in each case; the exact nature of any charge brought; and the current status of any subsequent court case.

35. The detailed information provided shows that 17 of the 24 suspects arrested on 9 and 10 August 2006 in connection with the alleged airline bomb plot were charged with offences:

  • 11 within 12 days,
  • 1 within 15 days,
  • 3 within 19 days and
  • 2 after 27 days 20 hours.

36. Of the 17 charged, therefore, 6 were charged only after their detention had been extended beyond 14 days, and 2 were charged just 4 hours before the end of the 28 day period.

37. The detailed figures also show that, of the 7 suspects released without charge:

  • 1 was released within a day
  • 1 after 11 days
  • 2 after 13 days
  • 1 after 23 days and 23 hours
  • 1 after 27 days and 16 hours and
  • 1 after 27 days and 20 hours.

38. Of the 7 not charged, therefore, 4 were released without charge within the old 14 day period, but 3 were released without charge well after that time, including 2 who were released without charge only at the very end of the 28 day period.

39. It is clear to us that this bare statistical information alone is not sufficient to answer the question "Does the airline bomb plot demonstrate the need for the extension to 28 days?" On the one hand, the fact that 6 suspects were detained for more than 14 days before being charged would appear on the face of it to show that the increase from 14 to 28 days was necessary. On the other hand, the fact that 3 of the 5 suspects who were authorized to be detained for the full 28 days were released without charge very close to the end of that period could be said, on the face of it, to raise concerns about whether the power to detain for up to 28 days is being used to detain those against whom there is least evidence.

40. There are clearly more detailed questions which need to be asked in order for Parliament to be fully informed about whether the experience of the alleged airline bomb plot shows the increase to 28 days to have been justified. For example:

  • Was the evidence on which the individuals were charged after 14 days available before the expiry of the 14 day period?
  • How precisely has the 28 day period enabled prosecutions to be brought forward that "otherwise may not have been possible"?
  • How did the longer period affect the urgency with which the police pursued the investigation in relation to each of the suspects?
  • How often were the suspects held for the longer period questioned by the police?
  • Did the longer period available to the police have any noticeable effect on the amount of disclosure made by the police to the suspects?
  • Are investigations being pursued in relation to any of the three suspects who were detained for almost the full 28 day period and then released without charge and have any of these three individuals been made subject to a control order?
  • How would the availability of post-charge questioning have affected the way in which the police conducted their investigation into the alleged airline bomb plot? Would it have enabled any of the suspects to be charged with the same offence earlier than they were in fact charged?
  • What was the psychological impact on those detained for nearly four weeks before being released without charge?

41. We are disappointed that the most recent report of the statutory reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000[30] does not provide this level of detailed scrutiny of the cases in which the new power of extended pre-charge detention has been used.[31]

42. During the recent debate on renewal of the extension to 28 days the Minister queried whether it is "useful" to look for "evidence" of the need to extend the period of pre-charge detention.[32] He said that "the issue is as much about looking at where we are going over the next couple of years, in terms of the threat, as it is about assessing where we have come from"[33] and that the purpose of the proposed consultation is to arrive at "a view that is part evidence-based, part speculation and partly based on making some assumptions, to the extent that we can, about the nature of the threat that is to come."[34] We are concerned by any suggestion that the extension of the period of pre-charge detention does not need to be justified by reference to clear evidence that the period which already exists has proved to be inadequate in practice. We remain of the view any extension is an interference with liberty that requires a compelling, evidence-based demonstrable case, and that the most important evidence capable of justifying such an extension would be firm statistical evidence demonstrating the number of actual cases in which the current limit had either prevented charges from being brought at all, or required the police to bring the wrong or inappropriate charges.[35]

43. We recommend that for all future renewals of the power of extended pre-charge detention, there be made available to Parliament in good time an independent review of the circumstances in which the power to be renewed has been used in the previous year so as to enable Parliament to make an informed decision, on the basis of independent expert advice, about whether this extraordinary power of pre-charge detention is justified.

44. We also recommend that an appropriate independent body undertake an in-depth scrutiny of the operation in practice by the Metropolitan Police Service of the new power of pre-charge detention beyond 14 days. The Metropolitan Police Authority, the independent statutory body charged with scrutinising the work of the Metropolitan Police Service,[36] may be well placed to do this.[37] Although it is too late for such an independent review to inform this year's parliamentary debate on renewal of the extension to 28 days, it is highly desirable that it be available to inform the forthcoming debate in Parliament as to whether there needs to be a further extension to the 28 day limit.

Is there evidence of a current need to go beyond 28 days?

45. Although the Government's aim is to build a broad consensus about the need to extend the maximum period of detention beyond 28 days, it has made it clear that it is already itself persuaded that such a need exists.

46. As we said in our report on what became the Terrorism Act 2006, extending the period of pre-charge detention to 28 days, the interference with the right to liberty in extending pre-charge detention is so significant that there needs to be very clear evidence of the need for it. We regard it as an important part of our role to give very careful scrutiny to whether there is any evidence that a further extension to the period of pre-charge detention is really necessary. We regard two pieces of evidence as being of particular significance on this question.

47. First, in his response to our queries about the use that has so far been made of the power to detain for more than 14 days, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, said

"There is currently no direct evidence to support an increase in detention without charge beyond 28 days, however the complexity and scale of the global terrorist challenge, sophisticated use of technology, protracted nature of forensic retrieval and potential for multiple operations may lead to circumstances in which 28 days could become insufficient. The speed with which terrorist conspiracies have increased in number, in the gravity of their ambition and the number of conspirators suggests that a pragmatic inference can be drawn that 28 days may not be enough at some time in the near future."[38]

48. Second, in his recent Report on the Operation in 2006 of the Terrorism Act 2000, Lord Carlile said:

"I expect in the course of time to see cases in which the current maximum of 28 days will be proved inadequate. I have seen no such cases since the increase to 28 days."[39]

49. We asked Tony McNulty MP, on what basis the Government would be seeking to persuade the public and Parliament that 28 days' pre-charge detention is not sufficient when, in the view of the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner, there is currently no direct evidence to support an increase beyond 28 days.[40] The Minister agreed that it is very difficult to provide evidence, and thought that the Commissioner had been right to say that there was no substantial evidence other than what had happened in the summer following the alleged airline plot.[41] He said "given the increasing complexities of some of these plots, it may well be that we need in extremis to go beyond that, so is there some sort of legislative device or portal that says in extremis it can go beyond 28 days but really, really for exceptional circumstances alone with absolutely appropriate parliamentary, judicial and other forms of scrutiny."

50. During our visit to Paddington Green police station we were told that one of the main reasons why the police wanted to extend the period of pre-charge detention was the time taken to search the hard drives of computers seized from terrorism suspects. In an attempt to ascertain the scale of this problem, we asked if we could be provided with any figures, or a rough indication, of the number of times Terrorism Act suspects had been released without charge and then subsequently rearrested (or sought for arrest) in light of information that had subsequently come to light as a result of searching computer hard drives or related material. We were told in response that one officer could think of one such situation, but that "no data is kept to capture this set of circumstances." We recommend that, in order to help Parliament evaluate the strength of the case for further extending pre-charge detention, the police should in future keep data in relation to this and similar questions which are central to the adequacy of the current period.

51. It would therefore appear that the case for extending the maximum period of detention beyond the current limit of 28 days is precautionary in nature: none of those advocating an extension of the period is claiming that there is evidence to demonstrate that the current limit has proved to be inadequate in any single case to date. Rather the case for extending the 28 day limit is based on an assessment that there "may well be" such a case in the future, given the increasing complexity of the plots and therefore of the investigations.

52. In our view, on the information currently available to us, the justification which is offered for further extending the 28 day period does not meet the strict test of necessity which must be satisfied where any new power would constitute an interference with personal liberty. A power with such a significant impact on liberty as the proposed power to detain without charge for more than 28 days should in our view be justified by clear evidence that the need for such a power already exists, not by precautionary arguments that such a need may arise at some time in the future.

53. We note the recent proposals by ACPO and Lord Carlile for extending the current 28 day limit by removing an upper limit altogether and replacing it with enhanced judicial supervision of extensions of pre-charge detention. We welcome any proposal to improve the current judicial safeguards, which we consider to be inadequate for reasons we explain below. We do not agree, however, that the law should authorise such judicially supervised pre-charge detention "for as long as it takes": this risks becoming preventive detention, which, as the Government itself accepts, is not permissible under Article 5 ECHR. Nor do we agree that Parliament should leave it to the judges to decide on a case by case basis what the limit of pre-charge detention should be. In our view it is essential that there be an upper limit to the period of pre-charge detention, and that in a parliamentary democracy this limit should be clearly prescribed in a law passed by Parliament after carefully considering the evidence relied on to demonstrate the length of time which is needed.

54. In addition to the lack of direct evidence demonstrating a current need to extend the 28 day period, we remain of the view that such an extension is unnecessary in light of a number of other alternatives which, in combination, should significantly reduce the need for longer pre-charge detention. In addition to those identified in our previous report (the flexibility introduced by the lower "threshold test" for charging developed by the CPS, active judicial oversight of the application of the post-charge timetable, and the drawing of adverse inferences from a refusal to answer questions at a post-charge interview), the availability of police bail for some of the less serious terrorism offences should also, in our view, make it less necessary to increase the maximum detention period. We consider these alternatives to extending pre-charge detention in Chapter 5 below.

Why does the UK need a longer period than other democracies?

55. In other comparable democracies, such as Canada, the maximum period of pre-charge detention is very much shorter than 28 days.[42] We note that the suspects arrested in Toronto in 2006 in connection with an alleged plot to carry out various terrorist offences were charged very shortly after arrest. In light of this apparently significant difference, we asked the Commissioner what in his view is different about the UK situation that makes it necessary to have a period of pre-charge detention so much longer than in other comparable democracies?[43]

56. The Commissioner replied that legislation and judicial process differ widely across different countries, and that the Canadian counter-terrorism operation in question was different from the operation in relation to the alleged airline bomb plot. The Canadian authorities had been monitoring the suspects for some time and had infiltrated the group, so they already had substantial quantities of evidence before arresting. In the case of the alleged airline bomb plot at Heathrow, the Commissioner said, the arrests were made in the interests of public safety on the basis of intelligence and the process of gathering evidence which could substantiate charges only really began after arrest.

57. Even assuming that there were in fact these differences between the particular UK and Canadian operations, we assume that the case for acting pre-emptively on the basis of intelligence must be just as applicable in other jurisdictions such as Canada. We therefore remain puzzled by the apparently large discrepancy between the 28 day period of pre-charge detention in the UK and the period in other comparable countries. We recommend that the Government commission an independent comparative study of pre-charge detention periods in comparable democracies, together with an analysis of the possible reasons for any significant differences between the position in the UK and the position in such comparable countries.

Are the judicial safeguards adequate?

58. We welcome the Government's acceptance that any extension of the current 28 day limit on pre-charge detention would have to be accompanied by "proper judicial oversight". We also welcome the Prime Minister's acknowledgment that such proper judicial scrutiny is essential in order to guarantee against arbitrariness in the exercise of powers which take away liberty. Although, for the reasons we have given above, we do not agree with Lord Carlile's recent suggestion that a statutory upper limit be replaced by improved judicial supervision, we are also encouraged by his suggestion that there is scope for improving the judicial safeguards that currently exist when pre-charge detention is extended.

59. We have consistently expressed our view in previous reports that the judicial oversight which already exists over pre-charge detention up to 28 days is inadequate.[44] In those earlier reports we have explained in detail why in our view the judicial scrutiny of extended pre-charge detention is not proper judicial scrutiny: in summary, it falls well short of a full adversarial hearing because under the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000[45] detention can be extended in the absence of the detainee or on the basis of material not available to them.[46] We were of the view that any further increase in the period of pre-charge detention beyond 14 days would require the procedural deficiencies in the current statutory regime to be remedied in order to ensure that the detainee has access to a full adversarial hearing before a judge when deciding whether further detention is necessary. We repeat our recommendation that, in order for there to be "proper judicial scrutiny", there should be a full adversarial hearing before a judge when deciding whether further pre-charge detention is necessary, subject to the usual approach to public interest immunity at criminal trials, including when necessary the use of a special advocate procedure when determining whether a claim to public interest immunity is made out.

60. We also have concerns about the adequacy of judicial oversight of decisions to extend pre-charge detention in light of the narrow scope of the questions which the court is required to answer. On an application by the police for extended detention, the court must ask two questions: first, are there reasonable grounds for believing that further detention is necessary to preserve relevant evidence, including pending the result of an examination or analysis of any relevant evidence; and, second, is the investigation being conducted diligently and expeditiously. Neither of these questions goes to the substantive question of whether there is material giving reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect has committed a terrorism related offence. There is no onus on the police to satisfy the court of this basic premise of the suspect's detention. The adequacy of the judicial control is called into question by the fact that three of the suspects arrested in connection with the alleged airline bomb plot last August were judicially authorised to be detained for up to 28 days yet were eventually released without charge at the very end of that period. We intend to look more closely at the way in which judicial hearings to extend detention operate in practice and we may report further on this question in due course.

61. We recommend that any independent inquiry into the operation of the 28 days provision in the alleged airline bomb plot case should scrutinise carefully the basis on which the court granted warrants of further detention to the police in relation to suspects who were eventually released without charge, and in particular the three suspects who were detained for nearly the entire 28 day period before being released without charge. We also recommend that consideration be given to introducing an additional requirement that a court authorising extension of the period of detention must be satisfied that there is a sufficient basis for arresting and questioning the suspect.

Are the current arrangements for parliamentary review adequate?

62. We welcome the Government's recognition that any further extension of the limit on pre-charge detention, beyond the current 28 days, would also require further parliamentary as well as judicial oversight. The Government suggests that this might, for example, include a detailed annual report to Parliament with an accompanying debate.

63. In our view, as we have commented above, there is already a need to enhance the current arrangements for parliamentary review to ensure that Parliament is fully and reliably informed, by an independent expert, prior to renewing the existing power to detain without charge for up to 28 days. We recommend that, whether or not the current limit is extended, parliamentary oversight of this very significant and extraordinary power be improved by (i) the Home Secretary providing at least a month before any renewal debate a detailed annual report to Parliament on the use which has been made by the police of the power to detain without charge beyond 14 days; (ii) an independent reviewer reporting annually to Parliament at least a month before any renewal debate on the operation in practice of pre-charge detention more than 14 days, and on the necessity for the power; and (iii) an annual debate in both Houses on an affirmative resolution to renew the power. These improvements to the process of parliamentary review need not await legislation to be introduced by the Government. They could, however, be made the subject of statutory requirements in the forthcoming counter terrorism bill.




10   Former Home Secretary's 7 June Statement on Counter Terrorism, HC Deb 7 June, col. 422. Back

11   JCHR Report on Prosecution and Pre-charge Detention, at para. 144. Back

12   The Government Reply to the Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2005-06, HL Paper 240/HC 1576, Cm 6920 (29 September 2006), p. 11. Back

13   ibid, p. 4. Back

14   Ev 48. Back

15   Letter from Sir Ian Blair to the Chair of the JCHR, undated but received on 2 February 2007, Ev 49. Back

16   Report on the Operation in 2006 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C. (June 2007), presented to Parliament pursuant to s. 126 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (hereafter "Lord Carlile's Report on the operation of the Terrorism Act in 2006"). Back

17   ibid at para. 95. Back

18   ibid at para. 101. Back

19   Terrorism Act 2006, s. 25. Back

20   The draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of section 25) Order 2007. Back

21   HC Deb 10 July 2007 cols 1346-1368. Back

22   The Observer, Lock terror suspects up indefinitely say police, 15 July 2007. Back

23   BBC Radio 4, the Today Programme, 16 July 2007. Back

24   IbidBack

25   HC Deb 10 July 2007, col. 1348. Back

26   Speech to the Urban Age Summit, 11 November 2006. Back

27   Terrorism Act 2006, s. 25. Back

28   Ev 48. Back

29   Ev 49. Back

30   Lord Carlile's Report on the operation of the Terrorism Act in 2006.  Back

31   The Report does not state in how many cases the power to authorise extended detention has been exercised. Back

32   Tony McNulty, MP, HC Deb 10 July 2007, col. 1347. Back

33   ibid, col. 1348. Back

34   ibid, col. 1349. Back

35   Third Report of Session 2005-06, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters, HL Paper 75-I/HC 561-I, at paras 89-90. Back

36   The Metropolitan Police Authority was established by the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Back

37   The MPA conducts "in-depth scrutinies" of specific aspects of the Metropolitan Police Service's work: see e.g. its reports on the use by the MPS of stop and search powers uder s. 44 Terrorism Act 2000. Back

38   Ev 49. Back

39   Lord Carlile's Report on the operation of the Terrorism Act in 2006, at para. 95. Back

40   Oral evidence, 18 April 2007, Q 97. Back

41   ibid, Q 98. Back

42   For the position in France and Spain, see JCHR Report on Prosecution and Pre-charge Detention (2006) at paras 118-121. Back

43   Ev 48. Back

44   JCHR Report on the Terrorism Bill at paras 93-99; JCHR Report on Prosecution and Pre-charge Detention at paras 136-138. Back

45   Paras 33(3) and 34(1) and (2) of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Back

46   Our predecessor Committee made the same point about the deficiencies in the procedural safeguards for the detainee to guarantee against arbitrary or disproportionate detention when the maximum period of pre-charge detention was increased from 7 to 14 days in the Criminal Justice Act 2003: see Eleventh Report of Session 2002-03, Criminal Justice Bill: Further Report, HL Paper 118/HC 724. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 30 July 2007