| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Condon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, set out most eloquently and fairly the case for the amendment today. He equally fairly said that there are no right or wrong answers in this debate. It is ultimately a question of judgment and that is a judgment that we all exercise, I hope, sooner rather than later this evening. I will add briefly to the comments I made in Committee. We are talking about a small number of cases here. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is not in his place, said that perhaps in one or two cases the detention up to 90 days would be beneficial. If we grant detention beyond 28 days, we will not be giving the police or the intelligence services a greater chance of preventing another act of terrorism, because by definition this will come into play only once an arrest has been made and a potential act of terrorism has already been interdicted. So what is at stake? In one or two cases, do we want the police and the prosecutors to have a slightly better case of ensuring a prosecution? That is what the battleground is about. My concern is that for the sake of increasing the chance of one or two prosecutions, we are sacrificing some very fundamental human rights. That is what is at stake and that is the judgment you will make. My judgment is that I am not prepared to take
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1231
that risk at this stage because the battle against fundamental Islamic terrorism is a battle that will last for decades and perhaps even centuries. It is a battle for hearts and minds as much as for one or two prosecutions. So although I respect all the noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently in favour of the amendment, at this stage I will find difficulty in supporting it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in this extremely important and interesting debate, we have had the personal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, at a time when he was engaged in curbing terrorist activities in Northern Ireland. He has emphasised to your Lordships the importance of working alongside the population and how the introduction of detention without trial undermined that critical weapon that he had in his armoury. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, with all his experience as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who has told your Lordships that we are sacrificing some very important human rights if we go along this road. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, has told us of his personal experience of the effects of the 90-day law in South Africa. You cannot beat these experiences that have been told to us today from the point of view of persuading us what course we should take. I simply want to address one aspect of the case where I think some of your Lordships may be a little misled. The noble Lord, Lord Imbert, when he spoke on 13 December, said:
"To allow 14, or even 28 days, for a major and complex inquiry is woefully inadequate".—[Official Report, 13/12/05; col. 1164.]
Today, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked whether that period of time was practical. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said that it is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the police.
I would entirely agree that if an investigation were to be crammed within 14 or 28 days, it would be "totally inadequate". But a police inquiry does not begin with the arrest of an individual and end with the charge. These are important moments within a spectrum of activity which starts with the initial suspicion that begins the inquiry. It would be highly unusual for a suspect in a terrorist case to be arrested immediately after the suspicion first arose. An arrest would be unlikely to be triggered by an anonymous phone call. If the police hear that a person may be a terrorist, they are naturally anxious to build up a case and to find out with whom he is in contact and what the tendrils are of any conspiracy that there may be. So by adopting methods of surveillance: by bugging his home and car and monitoring his telephone and e-mail traffic, they will obtain evidence.
6.15 pm
They may very well make the sort of inquiries abroad that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, referred to. The concept of making inquiries abroad within a 14-, 28-, 60- or 90-day period is quite impossible. It obviously cannot be done. But inquiries are made abroad before arrest and they are made after arrest, to fulfil that type of inquiry. Arrest of a suspect
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1232
obviously brings these investigations by way of surveillance to a full stop. But it also gives certain rights to a suspect—rights to consult a lawyer—and in the short period that elapses until he is charged, when he is interrogated, an opportunity for him to give his side of the case. When he is charged he has the right to know exactly what is said against him.
Although arrest prevents surveillance and evidence of that sort, it does give an opportunity, for example, for specimens of blood to be taken from which DNA can be extracted; for taking fingerprints; and for obtaining other important scientific data. There may be searches of premises that are associated with him, which will produce reading matter, documents, hard disk drives, perhaps chemicals and even explosives. And there will be interrogations. Specimens will be forwarded to the appropriate laboratory for examination and analysis. This is not done within a 14 or 28-day period. It is a continuing investigation. Arrest and charge have different implications from placing boundaries around the police operation. No one can be arrested unless there are reasonable grounds for suspicion—that is a basic principle. A person suspected of an offence must be immediately cautioned. It is interesting to look at the provisions of code G on caution. Code G states:
"There must be some reasonable objective grounds for the suspicion, based on known facts or information which are relevant to the likelihood the offence has been committed and the person to be questioned committed it".
Those are the directions given to the police. Do not arrest until you are at that level of investigation. The suspect is taken to the police station, he is told his rights, and he is then interrogated.
Charging, which follows interrogation, is in serious cases the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service, which will consider whether there is enough evidence and whether it is in the public interest. If there is enough evidence, it must charge. It cannot keep a person in custody without charging him if it has sufficient evidence. It follows that if a person is held in custody without charge, there is not sufficient evidence against him to make a case, and if a person is to be detained for 60 days without charge, it is because at no time during that period is there enough evidence to charge him.
The point was made that questioning must stop on charge. That is not correct; questioning may continue if it is in the public interest, for the prevention of harm to the public. Noble Lords should have in mind the spectrum from the beginning of an investigation all the way up until the trial; arrest and charge are merely important incidents on that spectrum. We are all agreed—are we not?—that imprisonment without trial is the weapon of the tyrant.
The Supreme Court in the United States said in June 2004:
"The point at issue in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. If this nation is still attached to the ideals symbolised in its flag, it must not use the weapons of tyrants to resist an attack by the forces of tyranny".
We must not introduce imprisonment without trial in the face of the forces of tyranny.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I intervene because I suspect that many in the House would be grateful to move to a resolution of this issue soon. We have already devoted over an hour and a half to the issue today and over two hours to it in Committee. I have a sneaking suspicion that the sooner we can hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, the happier most of the House will be.
There is one item on which I was in total agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. I think that I quote her correctly as saying that all of us are pretty familiar with the arguments. After over three and a half hours, I think that now is the time to bring this debate to an end. I hope that noble Lords who were trying to intervene would feel happier if, after I had spoken, we moved on to the noble Baroness's speech and tried to resolve this matter.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene when the noble Lord is clearly trying to stop other people speaking. I would have hoped that, as suggested, everyone was familiar with the arguments. This is a House of experts and many expert views have been expressed; for example, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, whose knowledge and expertise on policing is renowned, said that nothing had been stated about why the police wanted extra time. The noble Lord, Lord Imbert, referred to that briefly before the noble Earl's speech, but I suspect that it is one of the issues that we have not addressed during this debate.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |