08 Jul 2008

Today the House of Lords is to begin its opposition to the Government’s controversial plans to extend pre-charge detention limits in the Counter-Terror Bill. Narrowly passed in the Commons last month, the proposals have been condemned as unnecessary, counter-productive and dangerous for community relations.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: “The dark arts of Government whipping may have got 42 days through the Commons however the Lords is a different place – more independent and respectful of the traditions that have kept Britain free and safe for so long.”

Baroness Helena Kennedy said: “As a long-time member of the Labour party, I am also very worried about the political folly of this divisive policy. I had long hoped that that my party could begin to win back the many members and voters alienated by the War on Terror and War in Iraq. Voting against 42 days would be a good way to start.”

Lord Ahmed said: “My fear is that the proposal of 42 days pre-charge detention in the Counter-terrorism Bill will play into the hands of extremist groups and individuals, and it will increase anti-Muslim feelings. It will be counter-productive as it will lead to damaged community relations, and further alienate the young Muslims. It is unjust and it violates people’s rights and it will inevitably undermine the UK’s moral authority around the world.

Liberty has pointed out that extending pre-charge detention to 42 days is:

● Unnecessary: The Home Secretary and Sir Ian Blair have accepted that there has been no case to date where longer than 28 days’ detention has been needed. The Government’s only argument is that the powers might be needed in the future. What support there is from amongst the police is, at its strongest, equivocal. Indeed, long-serving police officers, acting and retired, have told Liberty that 42 days’ detention would be “disastrous”.

● Wrong in Principle: It would fly in the face of our basic democratic principles of justice, fairness and liberty to hold people for over a month on the basis of police suspicion rather than hard evidence and without formally accusing them of any criminal offence. Innocent people would almost certainly be detained for long periods of time and then released without charge. Released after six weeks in police custody, the suspect may well have lost their job, home and the trust of their community, friends and perhaps even family.

● Counterproductive: Unjust measures like these do not make us safer. The Home Office’s own Equality Impact Assessment states, ‘Muslim groups said that pre-charge detention may risk information being forthcoming from members of the community in the future.’

● Better Alternatives: Alternatives suggested by Liberty include: (A) allowing intercept evidence to be used in criminal trials so that the police can use existing surveillance material to support a charge; and (B) with judicial oversight, allowing the police to re-question suspects that have already been charged with an offence if new evidence comes to light suggesting that a more serious charge may be appropriate.

For 10 months, Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign has focused on building a cross-party political and public campaign against the unnecessary and divisive policy, which would create injustice and undermine community relations. Liberty’s “Charge or Release” campaign, winner of the Public Affairs News’ Voluntary Sector Campaign of the Year in 2008, has the support of the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, political activist Noam Chomsky, Pakistan’s Human Rights Commissioner Asma Jahangir, designer Vivienne Westwood, former Chief Constable Geoffrey Dear, UNITE, UNISON, CWU, National Union of Journalists and the General Synod.

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

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. The Second Reading of the Counter-Terror Bill will be held on 8 July 2008 but the Bill’s progression is unlikely to be completed before the parliamentary summer recess. Any changes to the Bill made by Peers are therefore likely to be debated again in the Commons in the autumn. On 11 June 2008, the Counter-Terror Bill was narrowly passed in the House of Commons (315-306), despite widespread concern about the negative impact on civil liberties and community relations.

2. For a copy of Liberty’s briefing for the Lords Second Reading of the Counter-Terror Bill or Liberty’s short briefing, “Understanding the pre-charge detention debate” contact jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk.

3. 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.

4. 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. These findings have subsequently been supported by advice received from the head of research at the Italian parliament, the French chief of counter-terrorism prosecution as well as by the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights who stated that 42 days “would be way out of line with equivalent detention limits elsewhere in Europe”