Q&A: 42-day detention

 

By Dominic Casciani

BBC News home affairs reporter

 

There have been four Acts dealing with terrorism since 2000

What is the government proposing?

 

The government's Counter-Terrorism Bill includes a controversial proposal to extend the time a suspect can be held without charge to 42 days - six weeks.

 

In practice, this would mean police would have two extra weeks than under current rules to question someone arrested on suspicion of an offence before they are required to either charge or release.

 

How has the law on detention changed?

 

The amount of time that a terrorism suspect can be held without charge has changed significantly in the last eight years.

 

An overhaul of counter-terrorism laws in 2000 introduced the basic 48-hour detention, extendable to seven days with the permission of the courts.

 

In 2003 that was doubled to 14 days - and the Terrorism Act 2006 took it to 28 days. That four-week limit came after then Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated in a bid to introduce 90 days. Gordon Brown initially floated the idea of 56 days after coming to office in 2007 - and later settled on 42 days.

 

So why does the government want to extend the limit again?

 

The prime minister and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith say there may be occasions when the police need a lot longer to hold a terrorism suspect before they can bring a charge for a specific crime because of the "scale and complexity" of a threat.

 

Many investigations that have come before the courts have involved detailed computer evidence which, according to the police, is increasingly found in encrypted forms requiring huge effort to decode.

 

But have the police ever come up against the deadline before?

 

There have been very few detentions which have gone right up to the wire.

 

So far six people have been held close to the 28-day limit. Five of these people were arrested in 2006 in connection with an alleged plot currently before the courts.

 

Two of the five were charged and three released before the deadline. The sixth case of 28 days' detention involved another suspect arrested and subsequently charged in Manchester in connection with unrelated allegations.

 

So how does the support break down?

 

Ken Jones, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) argues that in some cases detectives are "up against the buffers on the 28-day limit".

 

He is supported by Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair, the current counter-terrorism chief, his predecessor and the former head of MI6. Sir Ian has said he is "not wedded" to 42 days but supports some form of extension.

 

However, there are plenty of people against the proposal, including Sir Ken McDonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, a number of former ministers, and Acpo's former head of community engagement. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats oppose the move and the government faces a rebellion from some Labour MPs.

 

What are the arguments against the extension?

 

Opponents say there is no need because powers already exist to extend detention for up to 30 days under emergency powers - meaning a grave threat such as wartime.

 

Critics, such as civil rights group Liberty, say there is no evidence police really need the power and oversight would be insufficient.

 

There is also the issue of symbolism. A delegation of Muslim leaders has already told ministers that the move will have a huge impact within communities which already fear they are in the spotlight.

 

How has the government sought to win over opponents?

 

Ministers have proposed a series of safeguards which they say guarantees proper checks and balances against arbitrary treatment.

 

Firstly, the home secretary needs to be satisfied there is a "grave exceptional terrorist threat". Secondly, top prosecutors and police issue a report setting out why they need the power.

 

Once the home secretary signs the order, she must inform Parliament within two days and both houses must approve the move.

 

The special powers for 42-day detention are only available to the home secretary for 30 days, after which she must reapply for the powers.

 

Even while she has these powers, each suspect will be able to challenge any application to hold them beyond 28 days in front of a judge.

 

Are there any alternatives?

 

Some opponents say the government is presenting this debate as all-or-nothing when there could be other alternatives.

 

Changes being made to the powers to question someone after they have been charged. But there are calls for this power to be extended yet further to allow police to charge someone earlier and then interview them as more evidence comes to light.

 

Others argue more secret intelligence could solve the problem - such as showing juries phone taps and other internet intercepts. But police chiefs say there is a world of difference between intelligence material and hard criminal evidence that secures a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Another more controversial proposal is to allow terror suspects to be charged on a lower evidence threshold. That charge would then be argued in the court, with the Crown saying they can build their case more fully in the weeks to come.

 

I am absolutely disguested by this whole situation, how can you possibly justify locking people up for 6 weeks / 42 days / 1008 hours / 60,480 minutes without even telling them WHAT they've been locked up for. Britain used to be an example of a democracy but the government is using a weakness in our parliamentary process to threaten Labour MPs to support this act just to try and gain the political upper hand on the Conservatives. Disgusting.

I am absolutely disguested by this whole situation, how can you possibly justify locking people up for 6 weeks / 42 days / 1008 hours / 60,480 minutes without even telling them WHAT they've been locked up for. Britain used to be an example of a democracy but the government is using a weakness in our parliamentary process to threaten Labour MPs to support this act just to try and gain the political upper hand on the Conservatives. Disgusting.

 

tbh i dont know much about this, but some guy said "it didnt work in northern ireland" , so ill listen to the voice of experience here.

This is actually one of few Brown proposals I agree with. Surely if someone's been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, and they get locked up for 42 days, they're pretty likely to be guilty? I don't get why everyone's making such a big thing out of it either, it's only two weeks longer than it currently is - hardly a lifetime...

Tbh, i agree with you...

 

It's strange how we feel we can hold someone without a scrap of evidence, or not enough to charge them anyway, for this long..

 

Surely if someone's been arrested on suspicion of terrorism, and they get locked up for 42 days, they're pretty likely to be guilty?

 

Absolute bollocks! In this country a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty mate.... In a court of law.. With a JURY OF PEERS..... If the coppers cant make their case within a whole MONTH pretty much, then perhaps their is no case to answer.....

 

In Northern Ireland there was this thing called "internment", basically which meant that the filth could hold a suspect pretty much indefinitely.... Internment (which, let's face it, is what this is...) led to the worst miscarrigaes of justice this country has EVER SEEN.... Guidlford Four, Birmingham Six, McGuire Seven... Ring any fukkin' bells.....? <_<

 

Absolute bollocks! In this country a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty mate.... In a court of law.. With a JURY OF PEERS..... If the coppers cant make their case within a whole MONTH pretty much, then perhaps their is no case to answer.....

 

In Northern Ireland there was this thing called "internment", basically which meant that the filth could hold a suspect pretty much indefinitely.... Internment (which, let's face it, is what this is...) led to the worst miscarrigaes of justice this country has EVER SEEN.... Guidlford Four, Birmingham Six, McGuire Seven... Ring any fukkin' bells.....? <_<

 

agreed. surely they can find evidence with 28 days, that has to be long enough

 

but it got passed last night.

...ironically by the Irish DUP members. I hope the House of Lords will see sense and throw it out

...ironically by the Irish DUP members. I hope the House of Lords will see sense and throw it out

 

They're the Unionists though.... Not surprised those extremist, sectarian Orange c/unts voted FOR a virtual return for internment....

 

Pretty bad days indeed when a Govt has to rely on the Orangemen to back a bill.... I'm just wondering what, exactly, Gordon Broon has promised them in return for their support.... -_-

 

The facts are that there have been NO CIRCUMSTANCES where a viable suspect had to be released because the police were unable to find evidence before the 28-day period ran out, as this report quite clearly states, even the Police themselves have admitted this... So I seriously question its necessity....

"Another more controversial proposal is to allow terror suspects to be charged on a lower evidence threshold"

 

I'm pretty concerned by this part... What does that mean, exactly...? Will it mean some Politics MA or PHd student doing their Thesis on Terrorism having their door kicked in merely for googling "Osama Bin Laden" or the "IRA"....?

 

 

...ironically by the Irish DUP members. I hope the House of Lords will see sense and throw it out

 

They're the Unionists though.... Not surprised those extremist, sectarian Orange c/unts voted FOR a virtual return for internment....

 

Pretty bad days indeed when a Govt has to rely on the Orangemen to back a bill.... I'm just wondering what, exactly, Gordon Broon has promised them in return for their support.... -_-

 

The facts are that there have been NO CIRCUMSTANCES where a viable suspect had to be released because the police were unable to find evidence before the 28-day period ran out, as this report quite clearly states, even the Police themselves have admitted this... So I seriously question its necessity....

"Another more controversial proposal is to allow terror suspects to be charged on a lower evidence threshold"

 

I'm pretty concerned by this part... What does that mean, exactly...? Will it mean some Politics MA or PHd student doing their Thesis on Terrorism having their door kicked in merely for googling "Osama Bin Laden" or the "IRA"....?

 

 

7, 14, 28, 42? A legitimate proposal for 90? Looks like slippery-slope to me. Soon it will be just 6 short months, just splashing water on someone's face, just a little camp down in Cuba... why not join the US in the hall of shame?

7, 14, 28, 42? A legitimate proposal for 90? Looks like slippery-slope to me. Soon it will be just 6 short months, just splashing water on someone's face, just a little camp down in Cuba... why not join the US in the hall of shame?

 

Couldn't have put it better myself..... They're attempting to do away with Jury trials for "certain" cases to "save court time".... Guess which ones those will turn out to be..... <_<

 

Innocent til proven guilty is fast becoming guilty til proven innocent in this fukkin' country..... :angry:

 

"Oh, if you've nothing to hide you shouldn't mind an ID card just to make sure, being on a national DNA database just to make sure, or us coming round to your house to ask a few questions just to make sure, us checking your hard-drive just to make sure......" Where does it all end.....?

Couldn't have put it better myself..... They're attempting to do away with Jury trials for "certain" cases to "save court time".... Guess which ones those will turn out to be..... <_<

 

Innocent til proven guilty is fast becoming guilty til proven innocent in this fukkin' country..... :angry:

 

"Oh, if you've nothing to hide you shouldn't mind an ID card just to make sure, being on a national DNA database just to make sure, or us coming round to your house to ask a few questions just to make sure, us checking your hard-drive just to make sure......" Where does it all end.....?

 

This is one issue I'm in total agreement with you on.

 

What possessed Gordon Brown to make a stand on this issue makes the mind boggle. Has he got a wish to go down in history as the worst, most incompetent Prime Minister of the last 100 years or what? Absolute madness.

 

Anyway, this issue has just seen a very rare occurrence, a politician showing principles......

 

Thursday, 12 June 2008 19:10 UK

David Davis resigns from Commons

BBC News

 

Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP.

 

He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.

Mr Davis, 59, told reporters outside the House of Commons he believed his move was a "noble endeavour" to stop the erosion of British civil liberties.

 

He is one of the best-known opposition MPs and his resignation came as a complete surprise in Westminster.

He told reporters: "I will argue in this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government."

 

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said it was an extraordinary move which was almost without precedent in British politics.

 

But so far no party has said they will put up a candidate against Mr Davis - the Lib Dems say they support him on terror detention and Labour is stil deciding whether to take part in what some of their MPs have described as a "stunt".

The BNP, which came fourth in the seat in the 2005 general election, says it will not stand against Mr Davis as it agrees with his stance on terror detention.

UKIP, which was fifth, said it was still considering its position, although one of its MEPs, Godfrey Bloom, has offered to campaign for Mr Davis.

 

If no other candidate has come forward by the close of nominations, Mr Davis would be returned as the MP without a vote.

 

'Personal decision'

 

Mr Davis has led the opposition to Labour's plans to extend the maximum limit terror suspects can be held beyond the current 28 day maximum.

On Wednesday, he accused the government of "buying" the nine votes they needed to get the legislation through the Commons.

He vowed that the Conservatives, who are the official opposition and favourites to win at the next election, would continue the fight in the House of Lords.

 

Tory leader David Cameron paid tribute to his campaign on 42 days and insisted the party would not change its policy.

 

But he stressed Mr Davis' decision to quit had been "a personal decision, a decision he has made".

He said it was a "courageous" move and he hoped Conservatives would support Mr Davis's by-election campaign.

But he added: "We cannot put home affairs on pause and it is my job to ensure that we have a team that's ready for government."

 

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve, who Mr Cameron has appointed as the new shadow home secretary, rubbished reports the Tory leadership was split on the issue of 42 days and pledged to repeal if they gained power.

 

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "Faced with a crucial decision on the safety and protection of the British public, the Conservatives have collapsed into total disarray on what is their first big policy test since they have come under greater scrutiny.

 

"David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned."

 

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis.

 

Labour MP Denis MacShane said he was sure Mr Davis would win the by-election but added "I think this will be seen as a stunt" which showed the Conservatives were "utterly unfit" for government.

 

The former Europe Minister said he thought Mr Cameron had "cut the ground from under David Davis by not pledging to repeal 42 days" if the Tories won the next election.

But he said Mr Davis' decision to resign was "a bad day for Parliament" and said he did not personally think Labour should run a candidate against him in the by-election.

 

In his resignation statement, he said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days."

But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms."

 

He listed the growth of the "database state," government "snooping" ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues.

"This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand," said Mr Davis.

"At least my electorate and the nation as a whole will have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law," he said.

 

The Lib Dems had targeted the seat in 2005 as part of its ill-fated "decapitation" strategy to unseat key Tory figures but Mr Davis was re-elected with a 5,116 majority.

 

Mr Clegg said the party would fight the seat at the next general election but he said the "unnecessary and illiberal" 42 day proposal transcended party politics.

 

 

 

Question -_-

 

Does this 42 day detention legislation apply in Scotland too? Is counter terrorism stuff a retained matter for Westminster or because Law and Order is devolved to Hollyrood does this 42 day thing only apply in England (and maybe Wales?) :unsure:

 

I'm thinking UK wide but I'm not really certain :blink:

The House of Lords are almost certain to reject this, thank God. Then, when it gets back to the Commons, the Labour rebels who bottled out of voting against it yesterday (perhaps hoping their vote wouldnt be necessary) will hopefully actually vote against it, given the results showed every vote really counted.

The House of Lords are almost certain to reject this,

 

They can only reject it three times though Danny... This probably will become law eventually.....

 

Ironic innit....? How it always seems to be NON-voted House of Lords that actually acts more of a safeguard to citizen's freedoms than our elected representatives..... :rolleyes:

 

Question -_-

 

Does this 42 day detention legislation apply in Scotland too? Is counter terrorism stuff a retained matter for Westminster or because Law and Order is devolved to Hollyrood does this 42 day thing only apply in England (and maybe Wales?) :unsure:

 

I'm thinking UK wide but I'm not really certain :blink:

 

It probably is.. But I can't imagine Alex Salmond being at all happy about enforcing it North of the border... Given his anti-Iraq war, anti Arse-kissing-America stance..... He'll probably see this as another reason to push for Scottish independence.....

This is one issue I'm in total agreement with you on.

 

What possessed Gordon Brown to make a stand on this issue makes the mind boggle. Has he got a wish to go down in history as the worst, most incompetent Prime Minister of the last 100 years or what? Absolute madness.

 

Anyway, this issue has just seen a very rare occurrence, a politician showing principles......

 

Thursday, 12 June 2008 19:10 UK

David Davis resigns from Commons

BBC News

 

Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP.

 

He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.

Mr Davis, 59, told reporters outside the House of Commons he believed his move was a "noble endeavour" to stop the erosion of British civil liberties.

 

He is one of the best-known opposition MPs and his resignation came as a complete surprise in Westminster.

He told reporters: "I will argue in this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government."

 

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said it was an extraordinary move which was almost without precedent in British politics.

 

But so far no party has said they will put up a candidate against Mr Davis - the Lib Dems say they support him on terror detention and Labour is stil deciding whether to take part in what some of their MPs have described as a "stunt".

The BNP, which came fourth in the seat in the 2005 general election, says it will not stand against Mr Davis as it agrees with his stance on terror detention.

UKIP, which was fifth, said it was still considering its position, although one of its MEPs, Godfrey Bloom, has offered to campaign for Mr Davis.

 

If no other candidate has come forward by the close of nominations, Mr Davis would be returned as the MP without a vote.

 

'Personal decision'

 

Mr Davis has led the opposition to Labour's plans to extend the maximum limit terror suspects can be held beyond the current 28 day maximum.

On Wednesday, he accused the government of "buying" the nine votes they needed to get the legislation through the Commons.

He vowed that the Conservatives, who are the official opposition and favourites to win at the next election, would continue the fight in the House of Lords.

 

Tory leader David Cameron paid tribute to his campaign on 42 days and insisted the party would not change its policy.

 

But he stressed Mr Davis' decision to quit had been "a personal decision, a decision he has made".

He said it was a "courageous" move and he hoped Conservatives would support Mr Davis's by-election campaign.

But he added: "We cannot put home affairs on pause and it is my job to ensure that we have a team that's ready for government."

 

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve, who Mr Cameron has appointed as the new shadow home secretary, rubbished reports the Tory leadership was split on the issue of 42 days and pledged to repeal if they gained power.

 

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "Faced with a crucial decision on the safety and protection of the British public, the Conservatives have collapsed into total disarray on what is their first big policy test since they have come under greater scrutiny.

 

"David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned."

 

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis.

 

Labour MP Denis MacShane said he was sure Mr Davis would win the by-election but added "I think this will be seen as a stunt" which showed the Conservatives were "utterly unfit" for government.

 

The former Europe Minister said he thought Mr Cameron had "cut the ground from under David Davis by not pledging to repeal 42 days" if the Tories won the next election.

But he said Mr Davis' decision to resign was "a bad day for Parliament" and said he did not personally think Labour should run a candidate against him in the by-election.

 

In his resignation statement, he said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days."

But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms."

 

He listed the growth of the "database state," government "snooping" ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues.

"This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand," said Mr Davis.

"At least my electorate and the nation as a whole will have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law," he said.

 

The Lib Dems had targeted the seat in 2005 as part of its ill-fated "decapitation" strategy to unseat key Tory figures but Mr Davis was re-elected with a 5,116 majority.

 

Mr Clegg said the party would fight the seat at the next general election but he said the "unnecessary and illiberal" 42 day proposal transcended party politics.

 

WOW.... Good on him.... Never thought I'd see the day whan I had respect for a Tory... But Davis is showing me that he's a much stronger, more principled man than his leader.... I reckon the Tories voted for the wrong bloke actually....

 

And I'm also shocked to see that even the bloody BNP of all people are against this becoming law..... STREWTH!!!!! I think it's coming to something when even the BNP fights the liberal (small 'L') corner..... Broon has made an absolutely catastrophic error..... He can say what he likes about this "YouGov" poll which appeared earlier on in the week, which appeared to show 69% support... But just the most cursory reading of this poll actually states that this "YouGov" poll was carried out amongst "Daily Telegraph" readers, who generally have politics slightly to the right of Adolph Hitler....... :lol: :lol: Gordy is a drowning man....

 

Friday, 13 June 2008 15:38 UK

Ex-Sun editor 'to take on' Davis

BBC NEWS

 

Ex-Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie says he is likely to take on David Davis in a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden if Labour does not stand.

 

He says he is 90% certain to stand on a national security platform, arguing in favour of 42-day terror detention.

 

But he is not likely to endear himself to voters in nearby Hull after saying: "It's an absolute shocker."

The light-hearted comments were caught on tape earlier as he was talking to a BBC producer.

When asked to clarify his remarks, Mr MacKenzie said he had been joking and he had never actually been to Hull.

 

On Thursday, Mr Davis stunned Westminster by quitting as an MP and shadow home secretary to force a by-election on the issue of civil liberties and 42 day detention of terror suspects.

So far no party has said they will contest it, meaning Mr Davis could be returned without a vote.

 

But Mr MacKenzie, who backs Labour on 42 days, said he wanted to stand against Mr Davis on behalf of the Sun and had the backing of the newspaper's proprietor Rupert Murdoch, after discussing it with him at party on Thursday night.

He told the BBC: "I have been associated with The Sun for 30 years. The Sun is very, very hostile to David Davis because of his 28 day stance and The Sun has always been very up for 42 days and perhaps even 420 days."

 

National debate

 

He went on: "I will 90% stand if Labour don't put a candidate up" adding: "I've got to get my ducks in a row, the people of what would be my new constituency would like me to have thought this thing through.

"Democracy has to be about two and not about one."

 

In May, Mr MacKenzie stood unsuccessfully in a borough council election in Weybridge on the issue of parking charges.

Mr Davis believes the government's plans to extend detention without charge are an assault on traditional British freedoms.

 

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown has described his move as a "stunt that has become a farce", although he has not confirmed that a Labour candidate will not be standing.

 

Mr Davis has said that if Labour does not take him on it will be an "extraordinary act of cowardice" by Mr Brown.

 

'Perfectly happy'

 

But he said his main concern was to provoke a national debate on civil liberties and the government's anti-terror legislation.

"I would be perfectly happy to have a fight with the Murdoch newspapers - but there will be a debate," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

 

The Lib Dems have said they will not be fielding a candidate as they agree with Mr Davis on 42 days. The smaller parties also seem unlikely to stand, with the BNP, which finished fourth in the seat in 2005, saying it would not be fielding a candidate.

When he made his announcement on Thursday, he said he wanted to take a stand on a range civil liberties issues including ID cards, CCTV, the growth of the "database state" and the erosion of jury trials.

 

But Mr MacKenzie said it was "rubbish" that "we are living in a controlled state".

"Personally I'm very grateful that there is CCTV around everywhere and I'd like more of it," he said.

"Most of us are not bad guys, we have nothing to fear."

 

He also told the BBC he would be campaigning on three issues - hostility to the "sense that our country is somehow in the grip of some kind of security vice", demanding that there be "the referendum for Europe", and on more populist issues - like seeking changes to government spending on "things I don't think we care about".

"At the end of the day I am really standing on behalf of those people who don't want to vote for David Davis."

He said he would wait to see what Labour did, but said that if they did not field a candidate "my instinct is I will probably end up standing".

 

What are your views about Kelvin MacKenzie taking on David Davis?

 

 

 

David Davis is certain to get re-elected as it's such a strong seat for him and with no Liberals or Labour candidates standing it all seems a bit of a pointless exercise. Perhaps Mackenzie's standing will get some more press attention to help address the issue however, with Murdock backing him it looks like most the papers will be BACKING the government in this measure as opposed to putting pressure on Brown to ammend the Bill.

Why am I not surprised that a sensationalist media whore like Kelvin McKenzie is sticking his oar in to an issue that he clearly knows very little about..... -_-