10 Jun 2008

Human rights group Liberty today received startling information relating to Ministerial claims about the use of the existing pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects. This information undermines repeated claims that the authorities have been “up against the buffers” with the current 28 day detention period.

Operation Overt, following the failed plot at Heathrow in August 2006, has been cited as one of the most complex counter-terrorism investigations in British history. As such, it has been repeatedly presented by the Government as critical evidence in support of an extension of pre-charge detention beyond 28 days.

Pursuant to Operation Overt, 24 people were arrested on 10 August 2006 and 17 were subsequently charged. All of those charged with conspiracy to murder were charged within 21 days. Of the five suspects held for 27 to 28 days, three were released without charge or further suspicion. Two were charged with other terrorism offences.
It has been consistently asserted (in relation to the two charged at the end of the 28 day period) that the evidence only came to light at the end of that period (see Notes to Editors). Notwithstanding the sub-judice rule, the Home Secretary, other Government Ministers, the Head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Metropolitan Police have all given evidence or commented publicly on this point. This has been central to the argument that the police are ‘up against the buffers’ under the existing 28 day limit.

However, that information is inaccurate and misleading. The following corrections have now been confirmed by a lawyer working on the case:

The evidence relied upon to charge the two suspects, at the end of the 28 day period, was obtained by the police within four and 12 days respectively.

During the last 15 days of detention, interviewing of both suspects tailed off dramatically with average interview periods of only 10 and 16 minutes per day respectively.

None of the evidence relied upon was encrypted, required forensic analysis or contingent upon foreign intelligence.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“I am shocked, angry and more than a little disappointed to find Ministers have repeatedly sexed up the operational pressures on the existing 28 day detention limit. Just last week in front of millions of television viewers, a senior Cabinet Minister told me that the full 28 days had been required for the gathering of evidence in three cases. Now I learn that wasn’t true. I hope that the similarities with the infamous Iraq vote will not be lost on Labour MPs tomorrow.”

No information may be disclosed that might identify the individuals concerned. The information revealed here does not prejudice future proceedings as it only relates to the time that evidence became available, not the quality of evidence or guilt or innocence of those awaiting trial.

Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

Notes to Editors

Statements made in relation to the 2 suspects charged at the end of the 28 day limit in Operation Overt

● Rt Hon David Miliband MP, BBC One, Question Time, 5th June 2008,

[In response to Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti] “Three years ago… You were saying that within 14 days we should just give the police more resources and they should get it done within 14 days. What’s happened since then? Three cases have got, not to the 14th day, but the 27th or 28th day. Those three are now being pursued through the courts for the most serious terrorist offences”.

● Ken Jones, Head of ACPO: ‘We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit.’ (Observer, 15 July 2007)

● Letter from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to David Davis, 6 November 2007: ‘In relation to the alleged airline plot … I am confident that those detained were charged or released as soon as all leads were exhausted or evidence crossed the charging threshold.’

● Counter-Terrorism Bill, 2nd Reading, 1 April 2008:

Mr. Paul Goodman: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. She will know that a major trial in connection with Operation Overt and the alleged aeroplane plot is to begin this week. Two people—one is a constituent of mine, and the other may be—were apparently charged on the 28th day, although it has been claimed that the police had sufficient evidence to charge them on the 21st day or before. Can the right hon. Lady definitively rule out the possibility of that occurrence?

Jacqui Smith: It is obviously difficult to talk about individual trials, especially ones that are due to start tomorrow, but the allegation to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been made on numerous occasions. I have sought assurances from the police that no such action has taken place, and they have frequently told me that none has. I have communicated that to some of the people who have made that allegation, but nevertheless it continues to be made—I know not for what purpose. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the occurrence to which he refers did not take place

● Evidence from Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and Bob Quick, AC Commissioner for Special Operations, to the Bill Committee, 22 April 2008:

Q 5 Mr. Grieve: May I turn briefly to time periods? One of the issues which has been raised during the course of discussion is that there have been occasions when the 28-day limit has come close to being reached. I do not know whether you can help us on this—I am deliberately trying to be a bit careful and am speaking in generalities because I am conscious that there are matters which may well be sub judice at the moment. One of the problems that I have had is that on the two examples that appeared to be given of going to 28 days, I was able to obtain information quite readily from others involved that, although it might have gone to 28 days, the evidence on which the decision to charge was made had in fact been available quite substantially earlier. Could you make any comment on that?

Bob Quick: I am aware of some of the detail of those cases. The decision to charge is a decision for the CPS, and it must be satisfied that a point in time has been reached and that the evidence to justify a prosecution is sufficient. It must be reasonably certain that a prosecution will succeed. It is largely a decision for the CPS about when that sufficiency of evidence has been reached. I know that in the cases to which you refer it was not satisfied until the very last moment, and the difference between charging and not charging was quite marginal.