Liberty fears overzealous pre-charge detention limits will alienate Muslim communities and has proposed reasonable alternatives such as making intercept evidence admissible and allowing post-charge questioning.
Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:
“The 42-day folly is undermining national unity and sapping public trust in anti-terror policy. We urge the Prime Minister to ignore the siren calls to
‘out-tough’ opponents and return to his original instincts for building cross-party and community consensus upon British fair-trial traditions.”
Flaws in the Government’s proposal to extend pre-charge detention include:
● on/off powers for the Home Secretary to extend pre-charge detention in individual cases to 42 days based on an “operational need” rather than a terror emergency
● weak and irresponsible Parliamentary oversight which would make MPs powerless for the first 30 days but then subsequently allow them to vote on individual cases, jeopardising future prosecutions
● courts will not be able to review the decision to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days
MPs are likely to vote on the proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill in late May or early June.
Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128 NOTES TO EDITORS:
1. The YouGov poll commissioned by Liberty asked the following question:
“The police currently have the power to detain and question people suspected of terrorism offences without charge for up to 28 days. This is called “pre-charge detention.” The Government would like to extend this period for up to 42 days without charge. Which of these do you think is the Government’s main motivation for this proposal?” 54 percent responded “because the Government wants to look “tough on terror.” The YouGov online survey sample involved 1,926 adults and was undertaken from 25th – 27th March 2008.
2. For a copy of Liberty’s two briefings on the Second Reading of the Counter-Terrorism Bill or Liberty’s short briefing, “Understanding the pre-charge detention debate” contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk
3. Liberty proposes the following counter-terror proposals be pursued instead of extending pre-charge detention:
- 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 calls for the Privy Council review’s findings on intercept evidence to be implemented before the Government considers extending pre-charge detention.
- 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 supplemented with further offences at a later stage. Current proposals in the Counter-terrorism Bill do not include judicial safeguards and do not allow police to question suspects about other offences after being charged. (see Liberty’s Counter-Terrorism Briefings for Second Reading)
4. Liberty has pointed out that existing laws and practices undermine the argument for extending pre-charge detention periods including:
● Threshold Test - The Director of Public Prosecutions (responsible for charging decisions) has said longer pre-charge detention is unnecessary because charging practice has recently changed to help the prosecution charge terror suspects earlier. Instead of requiring enough evidence to stand a “realistic prospect of conviction” (the full test) prosecutors can now charge suspects where there is enough evidence to support a “reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence” and where it is likely that additional evidence will soon be obtained (the threshold test). The DPP has said that the threshold test is now used frequently in terrorism cases – it was only just coming into use when pre-charge detention was considered in 2005. The Director of Public Prosecutions noted in March 2008 that the conviction rate in terror cases stands at 92 percent.
● Emergency measures in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could already 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. Safeguards offered by Government today offer far less protection than that offered in the Civil Contingencies Act.
● The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) enables a civil court to require an individual to hand over an encryption key (which unlocks data on seized computers). Anyone who fails to comply with such an order will be committing a serious criminal offence.
5. In 2007 Liberty formally launched its “Charge or Release” campaign to stop Government plans to extend the period terror suspects are held without charge. Liberty is mobilising its members, the public and politicians to oppose any extension beyond the current 28-day detention period, which is nearly four times longer than that of most comparable democracies. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign adverts which compare pre-charge detention periods in 15 democracies has run in national newspapers and been displayed on billboards across London. (www.chargeorrelease.com)
6. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign has the support of the UK’s largest trade union UNITE, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, the three leading London mayoral candidates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, and American Civil Liberties Union Director Anthony Romero.
7. On 12 November 2007, Liberty released a comprehensive study of terrorist pre-charge detention powers in 15 countries, including the United States, Spain, Russia, France and Turkey. Liberty’s “International Charge or Release Study”, based on advice and assistance from lawyers and academics around the world, demonstrates that the existing 28-day limit already far exceeds equivalent limits in other comparable democracies. In countries that do not have the exact concept of “pre-charge detention”, like France and Germany, lawyers qualified in those jurisdictions have identified the closest equivalent.
