Conclusion
101. Any extension to pre-charge detention is a serious
interference with liberty that requires a compelling, evidence-based
demonstrable case. We do not accept that the Government has made
out a case for extending pre-charge detention beyond the current
limit of 28 days, for the following reasons:
(1) We can find no clear evidence that it is likely
that at some point in the near future more than 28 days will be
needed. In particular, this is not the view of the CPS who say
they have been operating perfectly "comfortably" within
the current limit.
(2) The alternatives to extension do enough to protect
the public and are much more proportionate, especially the combination
of the threshold test (charging on reasonable suspicion), post-charge
questioning and making intercept admissible.
(3) The proposed parliamentary mechanism creates
a serious risk of prejudice to the fair trial of suspects, because
it involves parliamentary debate about the merits of extending
the limit in relation to specific ongoing investigations.
(4) The existing judicial safeguards for extending
even up to 28 days are inadequate because they
do not provide a full adversarial hearing or an opportunity to
challenge the basis on which someone is being detained.
| 
