Holding terror suspects without charge - why?
- Thread starter magneze
- Start date
The simple fact of the matter is that 14 days is far too short a time. After 7/7 it took two weeks or more just to forensicate some of the flats that the suspects lived in. This is because they are gone through several times and chemicals are used which need time to dry. If you want your anti-terrorist police officers workign 20 hours a day to try and comply with ridiculously short time limits then I don't think you're going to get the best of investigations.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
14 days is grossly excessive. The opposition immediately put themselves on the defensive by trying to hold on to 14 days instead of dramatically reducing it. Every other common law country has pre-charge periods ranging from 4 hours to two days for a reason. It is and should be a fundamental principle of common law that arrests are made only when the evidence for conviction already exists, not in the hope it can be trawled for. Police obsessing about someone held without grounds instead of accepting they've made a mistake is what will get you shoddy investigations.pdxm said:
If they don't have enough evidence to show to a judge, they should not even be allowed to cover your flat with god-knows-what chemicals. Geez.pdxm said:
If the cops have suffient grounds for suspecting you, then they should charge you - otherwise you have NO CASE TO ANSWER.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The position of the police (on this issue) is about having time to collect evidence with which to charge a suspect held in custody. There are investigations, apparently (7/7 being one), when they haven't even closed the crime scene after 14 days as they're still picking up the pieces. But, of course, for them 90 days is an opening bargaining position.
The position of Blair, however, seems the usual bullshit to me; he claims wholehearted support for what the police want, when he doesn't give a flying fuck for anything except how it reads in the Daily Mail, in this case the idea (as often is) is to look so much tougher than the Tories, and so much more supportive of the dedicated and heroic police who protect us against these appalling acts, etc, etc, etc.
So his motivation -he is a politician - is protecting his own back.
The position of Blair, however, seems the usual bullshit to me; he claims wholehearted support for what the police want, when he doesn't give a flying fuck for anything except how it reads in the Daily Mail, in this case the idea (as often is) is to look so much tougher than the Tories, and so much more supportive of the dedicated and heroic police who protect us against these appalling acts, etc, etc, etc.
So his motivation -he is a politician - is protecting his own back.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
eh ?
You need evidence - this 90 day thing is all / completley / entirely about (the preceived) need for more time to collect the evidence with which you then charge suspects.
You need evidence - this 90 day thing is all / completley / entirely about (the preceived) need for more time to collect the evidence with which you then charge suspects.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Hang on: Cart, horse. Horse, cart.
At the arrignment - when the charge/s is/are formally put (i.e. they've been formulated into an offence agains tthe law), the defendent is informed of the charges against him. You can't formulate the charges without the evidence.
No evidence = no charges. Rather than charges first, then no evidence.
At the arrignment - when the charge/s is/are formally put (i.e. they've been formulated into an offence agains tthe law), the defendent is informed of the charges against him. You can't formulate the charges without the evidence.
No evidence = no charges. Rather than charges first, then no evidence.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
err, yeah. I fink that's what this thread is about, and what the opposition parties are saying.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
a) Because they don't like the way they walk ?
b) Because collecting evidence is a process ?
b) Because collecting evidence is a process ?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Quite seriously, I think you need to stay in more. Middle England understand the process of accumulating evidence very well indeed.
Examples: Inspector Morse, Miss Marple, Heatbeat.
Examples: Inspector Morse, Miss Marple, Heatbeat.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Okay, I think we're 'missing' each other here. Have fun.
Laters.
Laters.
TAE said:
Evidence is what we collect. You get that from applying chemicals to things and then gleaning the evidence. We aren't talking shop lifting here. We are talking about things like conspiring to cause explosions etc. To prove conspiracy you need evidence, codes broken, physical links to people, computers analysised etc etc. Furthermore although the evidence can be colected after charge you can't really be questioned after a charge has been laid and a whole different sets of custody time limits are put in place. We are after all talking about a MAXIMUM of 90 days reviewed every week by a judge. A judge doesn't review terrorist evidence now while someone is on remand, for example. In fact you could argue that by allowing for proper investigations, the right people will get charged with the right offences and the whole of their detention will be subject to judical review. A much better set of circumstances all round
In Bloom said:
Because you will be in the process of gaining evidence! Evidence just doesn't appear, it has to be gathered. As I say we aren't talking about a shop lifting charge here. The evidence for soem terrorist offences is very hard to obtain. And as I have said 90 days will be a maximum, subject to weekly judical review and 9 hourly review in the police station. I would imagine it would be used very very rarely.
And if you don't have that evidence, how do you know they are planning an offence or have committed one? Because you don't like their face? Because they're a funny shade of brown? Because they look suspiciously like a Brazillian electrician on their way to work?pdxm said:
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
One wonders how any cases involving the use of forensic evidence ever get to court then.
In Bloom said:
No I think there is more potential for abuse in the current system. Police investigation hurried to get a charge, ANY charge. You end up on remand for a long time. Under new system, matter fully investiagted, all available facts put to CPS, you charged with the approprite offence or released, whole investigation over seen by judge every seven days which doesn't happen at the moment. As for the other post most cases involving complex forensic evidence mean the suspect gets bailed for several months, perhaps even a year. Not exactly a good idea to be bailing potential mass murderers now is it?
Not exactly a good idea to lock up utterly innocent people and give the police the power to itern people on pure suspicion. And as for oversight by judges, is that really supposed to be reassuring? I'm sorry, but if there's one state institution that is more consistantly reactionary, bigotted and authoritarian than the police, its the fucking judges.pdxm said:
Similar threads
