Battle against pre-charge detention moves to the House of Lords
The proposals in the Government’s Counter-Terror Bill to detain suspects for 42 days were narrowly passed in the House of Commons (315-306). The Bill now moves to the House of Lords.
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 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, National Union of Journalists and the General Synod.
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.
The Charge or Release Campaign continues and you can join it at www.chargeorrelease.com
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 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, National Union of Journalists and the General Synod.
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.
The Charge or Release Campaign continues and you can join it at www.chargeorrelease.com
