Ten o'clock news story

[alitalf]

There was a story on the news tonight about another move to extend the time that terrorist suspects can be held without charge beyond 28 days.

I've read about a few apparently inappropriate cases of people arrested under the prevention of terrorism act in recent years. The one that worries me most is that the old man who shouted "Rubbish" in response to something in a speech at the Labour Party conference, a year or two ago, was arrested under the prevention of terrorism act after he had been thrown out, apparently with more force than actually necessary, by the bouncers.

Does the possible extension of detention without charge, particularly with this politcal context, worry anyone else?

Comments

[muuranker.livejournal.com]

Yes, worries me!

I do understand that in some criminal cases (terrorism, fraud, whatever) the usual terms simply aren't enough. But I also believe that we have magistrates and judges who are perfectly competant (or if not, why not?) in reviewing such cases, so that the police have enough time to gather evidence.

[rustica.livejournal.com]

Does the possible extension of detention without charge, particularly with this politcal context, worry anyone else?

Yep, very much so.

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the old man who shouted "Rubbish" ... at the Labour Party conference did more than just that; though I now can't remember the details. Though I think I remember that he was trying to prevent other people from expressing themselves while he expressed himself, that seemed a good reason to chuck him out. I believe there was more.


One of the problems is that it apparently takes somewhat longer to gather evidence in the very complex cases that terrorism cases often are.

Personally, I'd prefer to not be a victim of a terrorist incident. The balance between a few innocent people locked up without real cause for, say, 90 days, compared to dozens of people killed because the police were unable to lock up the real terrorists for long enough to get the evidence to convict them seems a regrettable but possibly necessary evil.

The more people who get killed and injured by terrorists the greater the arguments for extended periods of detention. Personally, I don't think we have got to the stage of justifying 90 days. But how many people have to die before we do?

We want the benefits of living in this country. We as a collective group need to be prepared to defend them. While I'm not explicitly promoting the argument to extend the period of detention; I am in general favour of the principle behind it: that of defending our values. If the terrorists win and make our country what they want, rather than what we want, then we will have lost a lot more than 90 days in a police cell.

[muninnhuginn]

28 days is too long. (But then M is (not_quite) introducing me as his wife, the anarchist. At parents' evenings.)

[romancinger.livejournal.com]

In an ideal world, no-one should be detained for 90 days on suspicion, or even 28.

But this is not an ideal world, and I do not want me or mine to be blown up because of a liberal principle. The safety of the innocent majority has to be paramount.

[the-marquis.livejournal.com]

At present in criminal matters an arrested person can only be held for 24 hours without a Superintendent's considering the matter, and then if so reviewed detention may be extended by another 12 hours, plus they have access to legal representation. Usually this allows for evidence and statement gathering and a whole bunch of interviews plus of course the suspect can 'dry out' from any drugs or intoxicants taken and receive medical treatment/assessment if needs be - and of course they have to have 8 hours rest (so that if you nick someone at 10pm you waste a lot of the time you could use to interview them in, compared to noting where they are and coming back to arrest them at 7am).

With Terrorism the issue is muddier and sometimes the evidence harder to gather as I suppose after any actual physical evidence like chemicals etc, it is down to looking at travel movements, emails, mobile phone calls etc and some of these require third parties (such as other countries) to be willing to divulge stuff and for it to be decoded.

On the whole I support the idea of a longer period for investigation (so long as the bod has access to legal representation), such as 28 days, but if that's not long enough I'm suprised that 90 is the figure chosen after 28 rather than say 60.