Subscribe to the Compass feed
Join the Compass Facebook group
Follow us on Twitter
EVENT
Osbornomics
CAMPAIGN
High Pay Commission
PUBLICATION
The Advertising Effect
THINKPIECE
#60 Responses to Recession
Urgent consultation on the Counter-Terrorism Bill
Background information
The issues
- The Counter Terrorism Bill would extend the maximum period of detention that terrorist suspects can be held from 28 days to 42 days subject to the agreement of the police, Home Secretary, Director of Public Prosecutions and the circuit judge supervising the case. Each time the powers are triggered they can last for no longer than 60 days. The Home Secretary would also have to report to Parliament within 2 days of the limit being extended (or as soon as practical). In most cases Parliament would have no opportunity to discuss and vote on the extension. There would only be a vote if the Home Secretary wanted the 42 day time limit to remain in place for longer than 30 days. Until January 2004 terrorist suspects could be held for a maximum of 7 days. The maximum period was then increased to 14 days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and then to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006. There would be no judicial oversight of the Home Secretary’s decision to activate the 42 day limit.
- The Counter Terrorism Bill will allow post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects for the offence for which they have been charged. Where a suspect refuses to answer a question when it would be reasonably expected that they do so, this may adversely affect their case if they later rely on something they omitted to mention in court (e.g. an alibi).
- The Counter Terrorism Bill does not currently include changes to the law to allow intercept evidence (e.g. wiretaps) to be used in court. A Privy Council review committee is looking at whether intercept evidence could safely be used in court. The Government says that previous reviews of particular cases have suggested that allowing intercept evidence to be used as evidence would not make a significant difference to the ability to bring charges or reduce the time taken to bring charges.
Read further detail and the contents of the Counter Terrorism Bill.
For
The government argues that the increased threat from terrorism has ‘changed the rules of the game’. The threat from terrorism is now greater, and different, from that posed by the IRA and so stronger terrorism laws are needed. They argue that preventing those from publishing material or speaking in favour of terrorism will help marginalise terrorists and make it harder for them to recruit.
The government argues that the police should have greater powers to detain terror suspects without charge because terrorist offences are different from ordinary offences. The Police often have to intervene earlier in terrorism cases than in other cases because of the threat posed to the public. This means that collecting evidence is more difficult and the police need more time to get the evidence and then question the suspect before bringing charges. Time may, for instance, be needed to search CCTV footage for evidence, get access to mobile phone records or to establish the identity of suspects due to the use of forged documents. The results of forensic examinations may also take a long time to be known if, for example, access to a site is not safe or a terrorist attack has damaged much of the evidence. Further, because terrorism is increasingly international and more sophisticated, time may be needed to collect evidence internationally, translate documents or break computer codes.
The government says that the safeguards of requiring agreement of the Police, the DPP and the Home Secretary before the limit could be extended combined with the oversight of requiring the Home Secretary to report to Parliament within 2 days of the extension mean that the power will only be used in exceptional cases where it is necessary.
Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith are in favour of the proposals. You can read the Home Office’s recent publications on the subject and also watch the Home Secretary give her evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the subject.
Against
The proposals are being opposed by a number of backbench Labour MPs, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and civil liberties organisations. Other opponents include the Director of Public Prosecutions, the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Amongst those opposing some of the measures is senior backbencher David Winnick, a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Those against argue that it is in principle wrong to detain someone in police custody for over a month when there is not sufficient evidence to charge them. They also argue that the law would disproportionately affect Muslim communities. This would damage community relations, make it more difficult for the police to work with Muslim communities and provide a recruiting sergeant for terrorist groups. They point to the experience of Northern Ireland where internment is generally considered to have increased the danger of terrorism and alienated communities from the Police.
They argue that the police already have significant powers particularly compared to other countries. In Australia for example the government only allow a maximum period of detention of 12 days, in the United States the limit is 2 days and in Ireland the limit is 7 days. Here the Police can hold terrorist suspects for 28 days, compared to a maximum of 4 days for normal offences. They point out that both the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary accept that there has not to date been a single case where longer than 28 days detention has been necessary.
Since 2001 there have been three Terrorism Bills which have extended police powers (including raising the detention limit to 28 days just 2 years ago) and creating new terrorism offences. The Police now also have the power to get control orders against those thought to be a terrorist threat. Control orders are preventative orders, which impose obligations on an individual, which are designed to prevent, restrict or disrupt his or her possible involvement in terrorism-related activity. Control orders could include measures ranging from a ban on the use of communications equipment to a restriction on an individual’s movement. Breach of a control order is a criminal offence.
There are also concerns about the possible confusion that the system could create, with the possibility that at a time following a terrorist event the DPP, Police and Home Secretary could end up taking different views on whether the limit needs to be extended. There is the possibility that a “knee-jerk” reaction could result in a miscarriage of justice. There is a further concern about the proposal to debate individual extensions in Parliament. It is not clear how it would be possible to have an informed debate without also prejudicing possible trials.
It is also argued that there are other more proportionate ways of addressing the arguments for longer detention. These include allowing post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects and allowing the use of intercept evidence to be taken into account when deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge the suspect.
Liberty opposes the plans. Read their briefing.
Other Resources/views:
You can read the Home Office’s proposals
Get the Committee Stage Debate in the House of Commons on the Terrorism Bill
FCO guide to terrorism laws in other countries (in 2005).
Liberty’s study of comparative periods of detention in different countries.
Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, has produced a report on the proposed changes.
The Director of Public Prosecutions – The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken MacDonald has said ““The most I can say is that it is a matter of record that we have not asked for an increase. We are satisfied with the position as it stands at the moment.”
Go to the Home Office Terrorism website