The human rights group Liberty opposes any extension of pre-charge detention and has called for reasonable alternatives such as the use of post-charge questioning and allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions. Liberty believes that excessive pre-charge detention periods will damage relations between minority communities and the police, undermining trust and the intelligence needed to deal with the terror threat.
Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:
“The Government is right to abandon the divisive rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’, but it must now abandon the counter-productive policies that went with it. Despite Ministerial promises of exceptional circumstances and so-called safeguards, the reality of this bill is an on-off button for six weeks detention without charge.”
Flaws in the Government’s proposal to extend pre-charge detention limits include:
● Although described as a “reserve power”, the Home Secretary can trigger the power to detain people for up to 42 days at any time to deal with individual cases. There is no need for a public emergency - the only requirement is a report from the DPP and chief police officer stating that longer detention would assist their investigations.
● The Home Secretary only has to inform Parliament after triggering the 42 day limit. Parliamentary approval is not needed, meaning there would be no vote at all except to renew the powers after 30 days.
● The decision to trigger the 42 day limit cannot be challenged in Court and the power cannot be struck down.
Liberty has proposed alternatives to extending pre-charge detention periods such as allowing post-charge questioning (with judicial safeguards) once a person has been charged with a terror offence. Liberty welcomes the Government’s introduction of new post-charge questioning measures in the anti-terror bill but believes they do not give enough powers to police and prosecutors and omit vital safeguards. Under the Government’s plan, police may question suspects post-charge only about issues to do with the charge that has already been brought, rather than questions relating to possible new charges. With the proper judicial and other safeguards against abuse, police and prosecutors could have far greater powers, according to Liberty.
Liberty also maintains that existing 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 temporarily to extend pre-charge detention subject to Parliamentary and judicial oversight.
Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128 Notes to Editors
1. Numerous legal, parliamentary, and media pundits have said recently that the Government has not made the case for extending pre-charge detention limits beyond 28 days. These include the Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken McDonald, the Head of Counter-Terrorism for the Crown Prosecution Service Sue Hemming, the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, and the editorial leaders of national broadsheet and tabloid newspapers including the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror and the Times. To find out more visit
The Real Consensus and read the complete list.
2. In December 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. Visit
www.chargeorrelease.com to watch Liberty’s campaign video featuring designer Vivienne Westwood and actor Riz Ahmed.
3. 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. The 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.
