Terrorism Bill
- why I opposed the Government
Detention
without charge (also see my letter to the Evening Mail on the 2008 debate on detention
for 42 days)
During the Report Stage of the Terrorism Bill on Wednesday 9
November, I voted against the Government’s proposal to detain people suspected of
terrorism for 90 days without charge. As was
widely reported, the Government lost this vote and MPs agreed an amendment which extended
the current length of time that a terrorist suspect can be held without charge from 14 to
28 days.
Although I have my concerns about the extension of the current limit,
I supported the ’28 day amendment’ as to do otherwise would have resulted in the
3 month fall back position originally proposed in the Bill.
The Government deliberately tabled the 90 day amendment to be debated first
to add an additional hurdle to consideration of the 28 day amendment. If they had won the vote on 90 days detention
without charge, the 28 day amendment would not even have been considered.
I am prepared to accept that there may be grounds for extending the
present 14 day provision for detention prior to charge but the case has not been made out,
even in the briefing material produced by Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of the
Metropolitan Police Service, sited by the Government.
In the case of the so called ‘ricin plotters’ acquitted in
April 2005 of conspiracy to commit murder, A.C. Hayman alleges that a ‘suspect who
fled the country while on bail and who eventually proved to have been a prime conspirator
would have stood trial in this country’. Again,
he failed to mention that this person was released by the police (by their own decision)
after just two days in police custody – 14, 28 nor 90 days detention without charge
would have made no difference.
Also, as Gareth Pierce, a well-known lawyer in this
field, has pointed out, Police investigations invariably continue after suspects have been
charged and there are numerous instances where charges are added, withdrawn or amended
after a suspect has first been charged. There
is a misconception that accused persons may not be questioned by police after they have
been charged and remanded. Where ‘new and
significant’ evidence emerges, the police may make an application to interview
someone who has been already charged. Gareth
Pierce gives the example of the discovery of a ‘lock up’ garage containing
incriminating material but this could well apply to evidence awaiting investigation, such
as encrypted evidence as described in A.C. Hayman’s briefing. I put this point to the Home Secretary during the
Third Reading debate on Thursday 10 November but my concerns and the expertise of Gareth
Pierce were brushed aside.
Glorification of terrorism
At the end of the Commons stage the Bill was still in need of further
amendment, particularly on the wide definition of terrorism and on the provision relating
to the glorification of terrorism. I
anticipate that there will be further amendments in the House of Lords removing or
amending clauses relating to the glorification of terrorism from the Bill.
The importance of avoiding miscarriages of
justice
When
considering these matters it is important to remember that the concern isn’t whether
we would like to see terrorists detained for 90 days without trial, but rather, do we want
to see innocent people, including ourselves or our relatives, detained for 90 days without
trial. The many miscarriages of justice of the past should weigh heavily on our
consideration of these matters.
What happens next?
As a result of Parliamentary scrutiny so far, the Bill is in a much
better state than when it was originally introduced by the Government and I am hoping that
further amendments will ensure that I can support the legislation when it returns to the
Commons. It is particularly important that
offences relating to acts preparatory to terrorism should be put on the statute book not
least because in many cases, this would obviate the need for the use of control orders or
house arrest, as provided for in the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Act, passed
earlier this year.
Other relevant postings:
House arrest - Terrorism Bill
25 February 2005
