Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

During this period there will be a wide-ranging review of counter-terrorism measures, including whether holding someone for 28 days without charge is excessive. The UK’s current pre-charge detention limit is the longest in the western world.

The review will also include the unsafe and unfair control order regime, which Liberty has campaigned against since it was introduced in 2005. Liberty also expects it to consider reform of Section 44 stop and search, admission of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings and overbroad speech offences.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

"Six months in Whitehall passes a lot quicker than 28 days in a police cell without knowing why. The Coalition has bound itself together with the language of civil liberties. Now it must reduce the longest pre-charge detention period of any western democracy. A wide review of counterproductive counter-terror laws is welcome. At its conclusion, we also expect an end to the scandal of punishment without trial under control orders."

Pre-charge detention refers to the length of time you can be locked-up and questioned before you face a charge. In that time you might never be told what you are accused of, or be able to challenge the evidence against you. The Liberal Democrats had a 2010 manifesto pledge to “reduce the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 14 days”. No one has been held for more than 14 days in the UK since the previous Government dropped its proposals for 42 days in October 2008.

Control orders allow suspects to be indefinitely tagged, confined to their homes and banned from communicating with others without police interview, charge or trial. The effect of this legislation is that some people have been subject to detention and community punishment for over seven years on the basis of the Home Secretary’s suspicions and secret evidence which the suspect will never see.

Journalists contact: Liberty’s press office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128 NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. MPs need to vote every year for the 28 day period to be maintained. If they don’t the period reverts to 14 days. Parliament must vote before 25th July if they want to renew 28 days

2. The UK has the longest pre-charge detention limit in the western world. Comparative pre-charge detention limits are:

UK – 28 days
USA – 2 days
Germany – 2 days
Italy – 4 days
Russia – 5 days
Spain – 5 days for terror related offences
France – 6 days

See our comparative bar chart.

3. Operation Overt – the investigation into the ‘liquid bomb’ plot has been cited as one of the most complex counter-terrorism investigations in British history and was presented by the previous Government as evidence in support of a further extension of pre-charge detention. During that investigation in 2006, 24 people were arrested and five suspects were held for 27 to 28 days. Three men were released without charge or further suspicion and two were charged with terrorism offences. Liberty understands from a lawyer working on the case that the evidence used to charge the two men was, in fact, obtained by the police within four and 12 days. Further, none of the evidence relied upon was either encrypted, required forensic analysis or contingent upon foreign intelligence.

4. Control orders were brought in by the previous Government under the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act after the Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention without charge for foreign terror suspects in Belmarsh prison violated their human rights. Control orders (applicable to British and non-nationals alike) severely restrict who a person can meet, where they can go and all cases have involved electronic tagging. Restrictions have included lengthy curfews and bans on unauthorised visitors and internet access. Control orders can last indefinitely. The person does not have to be accused of any crime and does not have to be told why they are under suspicion.

5. In addition to the pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects and control orders, Liberty would expect the counter-terrorism review to consider:

- Reform of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allows for stop and search without suspicion. This power was found to be unlawful in the Court of Human Rights in January 2010 and is now in urgent need of amendment.

- Allowing the admissibility of intercept in criminal proceedings. We are unique in the world in not allowing intercept material to be made admissible in criminal trials. This seriously hampers our ability to prosecute and has led to the creation of a parallel justice system.
- Repeal of the offence of ‘encouragement of terrorism’ contained in the Terrorism Act 2006.

- Reform of Schedules 7 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allow immigration officers, customs officers and police to question, detain and take DNA from anyone entering or leaving the UK whether or not they have grounds for suspicion.

- Reform of a number of overbroad ‘lower order’ terrorism offences including sections 58 and 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 which have been used to stop journalists, tourists and others taking photographs in public places.

- Tightening up the definition of ‘terrorism’ also in the Terrorism Act 2000. As almost all of the ‘lower order’ terrorism offences are linked to this overbroad definition – many already broad offences are even wider in scope, scooping the innocent up with the guilty.