22 Oct 2007

Liberty expressed grave concern today as Home Secretary Jacqui Smith renewed calls to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days for terror suspects despite admitting that the case for these new powers has yet to be made. Liberty has called for alternative powers to be implemented instead such as allowing intercept evidence in court and post-charge questioning of suspects.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

"The Home Secretary’s revelation that the case has not been made for extending pre-charge detention will be met with considerable surprise. There has been so much posturing by so-called experts that few people have remembered to ask for the hard evidence before any change is made.”

Liberty has suggested the following counter-terror proposals be considered:

• Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty has given evidence to the Government’s Privy Council review on intercept evidence.

• Allow post-charge questioning in terror cases provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is judicial oversight. This will allow for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.

• Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

• Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

• Emergency measures in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could be triggered in a genuine emergency in which the police are overwhelmed by multiple terror plots, allowing the Government to temporarily extend pre-charge detention subject to Parliamentary and judicial oversight.

Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to editors:

1. Home Office figures indicate that 11 individuals suspected of terror-related offences have been held for up to 28 days. Eight were subsequently charged.
2. Recent Home Office statistics indicate that between 11 September 2001 and 31 March 2007, 1165 arrests were made under the Terrorism Act 2000. Of these, 132 individuals were charged solely with terror offences and 41 have been found guilty under anti-terror laws.

Questions and Answers on anti-terror proposals

Q: Doesn’t the complex and international nature of modern terrorism require longer than 28 days to investigate?

A: Properly planned and resourced investigations do not begin at the point of arrest but some time before. Further, there are now a whole raft of lower level/ preliminary terror offences (acts preparatory to terrorism, possessing material for a terrorist purpose, being a member of a terrorist organisation, funding terrorism, attending a terror training camp, inciting terrorism etc.) which can be used. Law and practice should be modified so that the police can properly charge someone with one of these offences with the possibility of adding a graver charge later.

Q: Wouldn’t judicial supervision help?

A: Before the moment of charge, there is very little for a judge or even the Director of Public Prosecutions to supervise. There is no formal accusation (or charge) for the defendant to meet or the judge to consider. The judge is likely to be told about police suspicions, concerns and enquiries and is likely to grant an extension for as long as possible. Neither he nor the defense lawyers have anything with which to balance the police argument.

Q: Doesn’t post-charge questioning bring its own dangers?

A: Yes. But here judicial supervision could actually help. The danger is of people being questioned, oppressively or for days or months on end pending trial. There is a further danger that the original charge might be flimsy or somehow “trumped up”. However a judge could be in a good position to a) verify the basis of the original charge and b) consider any applications for post-charge questioning subject to conditions such as the presence of a lawyer and time limits etc.

Q: Why is lengthy pre-charge detention such a divisive issue?

A: In a democracy, it is inevitable that more people are arrested than charged and more are charged than convicted. In a complex terrorist conspiracy, people are likely to be detained for long periods pending trial. However an innocent person acquitted at trial has had his day in court. Similarly an innocent person arrested and released quickly may feel unhappy but this can be mitigated by good treatment and as short a detention as possible. By contrast, lengthy detention without charge quickly becomes internment (imprisonment without charge or trial). The danger lies with those who are ultimately released after long periods (the equivalent of a short prison sentence) without ever facing a criminal charge which they can refute. History suggests that this injustice becomes a rallying point for extremists and terror-recruiters and makes it less likely that minority communities will report their reasonable suspicions to the police. If you suspect your brother, friend or neighbour of involvement in terrorism, you are more likely to take the difficult step of reporting them if you know that they will be charged or released promptly.

Q: What about a nightmare scenario, where there are so many grave plots at once that the police simply cannot cope within 28 days.

A: The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 already provides for true and temporary emergencies such as the one described. It contains a broad power to make emergency regulations subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight- including a power to extend pre-charge detention periods for up to 30 days at a time. Politicians should review the chilling emergency powers they already have before constantly seeking to change the law and take Britain into a permanent state of emergency that the terrorists would relish.