Holding terror suspects without charge - why?

[pdxm]

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.

This is not iternment. This is extending the time police have to investigate very serious offences. Internment had nothing to do with investigation. It would soon become very apparent if all the police did was to randomly lock people up with no evidence of anything. The police will have to show that the matter is proceeding diligently and expeditiously. I seem to recall that the judges recently
released men suspected of involvement in terrorism from Belmarsh. Not exactly evidence of an impotent judicary fawning to the police. Even to get a warrant of further detention under PACE is hard enough

 

[magneze]

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?

Judges can refuse bail as far as I know ... which would almost certainly apply if the police thought the suspect a danger to the general public.

 

[In Bloom]

This is not iternment.

What do you call locking people up for three months without charge?

This is extending the time police have to investigate very serious offences. Internment had nothing to do with investigation.

Do people need to be in prison for an investigation to take place?

It would soon become very apparent if all the police did was to randomly lock people up with no evidence of anything.

No, I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing random about it.

The police will have to show that the matter is proceeding diligently and expeditiously. I seem to recall that the judges recently released men suspected of involvement in terrorism from Belmarsh. Not exactly evidence of an impotent judicary fawning to the police. Even to get a warrant of further detention under PACE is hard enough

Did I say anything about an "impotent judicary fawning to the police"? And did the police want those people to be held any longer? Why were they held in the first place?

 

[pdxm]

Why can't you be questioned after charge? What are the time limits after charging?

You can be questioned after charge for ordinary offences but only in strictly defined circumstances and what you say is subject to the old caution and not the new one. If new evidence emerged of different offences than the one you have been charged with then you'd have to be re-arrested whilst on remand and the clock would start again. Very diffcult area of the law. I think the post charge custody time limit is around 56 day but don't quote me on that cos' I din't get involved much in that area

 

[Streathamite]

This is not iternment. This is extending the time police have to investigate very serious offences. Internment had nothing to do with investigation. It would soon become very apparent if all the police did was to randomly lock people up with no evidence of anything. The police will have to show that the matter is proceeding diligently and expeditiously.

Ermm...doesn't all this, and your earlier postings, necessitate us taking an awful lot from you - the police - on trust?
is there any reason why we, the public, should be willing to do that?

 

[Streathamite]

. I would imagine it would be used very very rarely.

on what basis can that be 'imagined'?

 

[pdxm]

What do you call locking people up for three months without charge?


Do people need to be in prison for an investigation to take place?


No, I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing random about it.


Did I say anything about an "impotent judicary fawning to the police"? And did the police want those people to be held any longer? Why were they held in the first place?

To answer some of your points. It is not internment because internment involves no investigation angle. Secondly, would you rather that while we investiagted people suspected of plotting to cause explosions etc they were allowed to wlak about freely, frankly I wouldn't be comfortable with that

 

[In Bloom]

To answer some of your points. It is not internment because internment involves no investigation angle.

Semantic wibbling.

Secondly, would you rather that while we investiagted people suspected of plotting to cause explosions etc they were allowed to wlak about freely, frankly I wouldn't be comfortable with that

Name that quote...
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

 

[Poi E]

Not exactly a good idea to be bailing potential mass murderers now is it?

Bailing occurs after someone has been charged.

 

[pdxm]

Semantic wibbling.


Name that quote...
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

It isn't a question of semantics but FACT. Try and get your head around the difference. People who were interned were held without lawyers, indefinitely, not for the purposes of an investigation and not subject to judical oversight. The two things are totally different.

 

[In Bloom]

It isn't a question of semantics but FACT. Try and get your head around the difference. People who were interned were held without lawyers, indefinitely, not for the purposes of an investigation and not subject to judical oversight. The two things are totally different.

I shouldn't think that would matter too much to people who are locked up, regardless of what term you wish to put on it.

 

[magneze]

You can be questioned after charge for ordinary offences but only in strictly defined circumstances and what you say is subject to the old caution and not the new one.

What are the strictly defined circumstances?

If new evidence emerged of different offences than the one you have been charged with then you'd have to be re-arrested whilst on remand and the clock would start again.

Err ... so what is the problem with that?

I've still not really got any precise reasons for why this is all necessary.

The problem was "more fundamental" than a simple decision by MPs about his own authority - the police were giving "very, very precise" reasons for a longer custody limit, he said.

I'd love to know what those "very, very precise" reasons are...

 

[Poi E]

I'd love to know what those "very, very precise" reasons are...

1. We need more time to do our work because we weren't any use in preventing the attacks this year.

2. that's it.

 

[pdxm]

I shouldn't think that would matter too much to people who are locked up, regardless of what term you wish to put on it.

I'm sure the people involved would much prefer to be detained as a consequence of their arrest for an investigative process, with a strict time limit, subject to regular review with access to lawyers etc etc than to be interned which is indefinite detention, with no investigative purpose. In effect you are arguing that the police will simply arrest people for the hell of it and hold them for three months, getting that detention approved by a judge every week on the pretence of an investiagtion which isn't actually taking place and to hell with consequences. I.E appalling press, questions in the house, demonstrations, racial
tension (which terrifies the police) etc etc etc. Something tells me that is extremely unlikely to be the case.

 

[pdxm]

What are the strictly defined circumstances?
Err ... so what is the problem with that?

I've still not really got any precise reasons for why this is all necessary.
I'd love to know what those "very, very precise" reasons are...

I don't deal with terrorists normally and they are covered under a different codes of practice. But in principle CODE C of pace only allows questioning after charge is only allowed "in the interests of justice" or when some evidence come to light which in the interests of fairness a charged person should be given the opportunity to comment on

16.5 A detainee may not be interviewed about an offence after they have been charged
with, or informed they may be prosecuted for it, unless the interview is necessary:
• to prevent or minimise harm or loss to some other person, or the public
• to clear up an ambiguity in a previous answer or statement
• in the interests of justice for the detainee to have put to them, and have an
opportunity to comment on, information concerning the offence which has
come to light since they were charged or informed they might be prosecuted
Before any such interview, the interviewer shall:
(a) caution the detainee, ‘You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say
may be given in evidence.’;
(b) remind the detainee about their right to legal advice.

In effect it very rarely happens and a detainee after charge is fully entiteld to
say nothing without the possibilty of inference. The same general principles apply to suspected terrorists

 

[Streathamite]

In effect you are arguing that the police will simply arrest people for the hell of it and hold them for three months, getting that detention approved by a judge every week on the pretence of an investiagtion which isn't actually taking place and to hell with consequences.

you ain't without previous, in that regard....

 

[pdxm]

you ain't without previous, in that regard....

Well there is no previous because 90 days detention doesn't exisit yet, so you're talking nonsense. The ones held in Belmarsh were held on the authority of the Home Sec, not the police

 

[JHE]

I don't deal with terrorists normally and they are covered under a different codes of practice. But in principle CODE C of pace only allows questioning after charge is only allowed "in the interests of justice" or when some evidence come to light which in the interests of fairness a charged person should be given the opportunity to comment on

16.5 A detainee may not be interviewed about an offence after they have been charged
with, or informed they may be prosecuted for it, unless the interview is necessary:
• to prevent or minimise harm or loss to some other person, or the public
• to clear up an ambiguity in a previous answer or statement
• in the interests of justice for the detainee to have put to them, and have an
opportunity to comment on, information concerning the offence which has
come to light since they were charged or informed they might be prosecuted
Before any such interview, the interviewer shall:
(a) caution the detainee, ‘You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say
may be given in evidence.’;
(b) remind the detainee about their right to legal advice.

In effect it very rarely happens and a detainee after charge is fully entiteld to
say nothing without the possibilty of inference. The same general principles apply to suspected terrorists

I'd have thought that the parts I've highlighted give plenty of scope for interviewing terrorist suspects after they've been charged. Don't they?

 

[pdxm]

I'd have thought that the parts I've highlighted give plenty of scope for interviewing terrorist suspects after they've been charged. Don't they?

No because they can say nothing and it isn't subject to inference. The evidential value of an interview after charge is negilible unless the defendant decides it is in his interests to be interviewed. That's why the caution used is different.

 

[pdxm]

Charging and the process of charging is an important safe guard for the suspected person:-#

1) It usually marks closure in the police interview process
2) It marks a time when disclosure is regulated for
3) it marks the time in which a BAIL decision is made
4) They must be put before the next available court if not bailed thus their detention is made subject to judical review

 

[Streathamite]

Well there is no previous because 90 days detention doesn't exisit yet, so you're talking nonsense. The ones held in Belmarsh were held on the authority of the Home Sec, not the police

and you know that wasn't what i meant; i meant malicious arrest, detention prosecution per se, which may be made 10x worse a problem given this new, draconian law.
and wasn't it the police who asked the Home sec to detain the belmarsh lot?

 

[magneze]

No because they can say nothing and it isn't subject to inference. The evidential value of an interview after charge is negilible unless the defendant decides it is in his interests to be interviewed. That's why the caution used is different.

But they could also say nothing/claim to be innocent for the whole of the proposed 90 days? What exactly is the advantage?

The police can still gather evidence and can continue their investigation. I can still see no reason for this proposed change!

 

[Poi E]

In effect you are arguing that the police will simply arrest people for the hell of it and hold them for three months, getting that detention approved by a judge every week on the pretence of an investiagtion which isn't actually taking place and to hell with consequences. I.E appalling press, questions in the house, demonstrations, racial
tension (which terrifies the police) etc etc etc. Something tells me that is extremely unlikely to be the case.

You assume the best of the authorities. History shows us that we have little reason to do so.

 

[JHE]

But they could also say nothing/claim to be innocent for the whole of the proposed 90 days?

Yes, but I think pdxm's point there is that if the suspect chooses not to answer questions before being charged, the court can be told that and the jury might infer that the accused person was hiding something.

There seems to me to be a case for amending the rules about interviewing people after charging them, not for holding people for three months without charge.

 

[pdxm]

But they could also say nothing/claim to be innocent for the whole of the proposed 90 days? What exactly is the advantage?

The police can still gather evidence and can continue their investigation. I can still see no reason for this proposed change!

1) You are depending on them being remanded
2) You can't put the evidence to them in interview because they've been charged
3) Much better to have immediate access to a suspect in custody so that you can inteview them, take an necesary samples as a result of what you've uncovered or, order their immediate release because you've uncovered something that shows they are innocent.
4) A remand prisoner is in prision and has a right to visits, telephone calls etc all things you can deny in a police station
5) Detention in a police station invokes additional powers of search etc which are not available with a remand prisoner

These are 5 reasons alone why investigating a remand prisoner is much less effective than someone in police detention, there are many many more

 

[TAE]

pdxm - interesting thoughts there, but I am really not convinced.

You know, there are reasons why people can't be locked up without charge, and those reasons have not changed.

If you say you need time to gather forensic evidence, then surely you can do that after someone has been charged. If you say you cannot interview someone after they have been charged, then I suggest that maybe those rules should be changed.

If you can't do your job then I call that incompetence. I know its harsh, but really that's how I feel about it. Or are you asking the population to give up a fundamental protection against arbitrary detention on the basis of red tape?


What is the weekly evidence that you will present to the judge if you don't have enough evidence to charge them in the first place.

 

[Poi E]

but I think pdxm's point there is that if the suspect chooses not to answer questions before being charged, the court can be told that and the jury might infer that the accused person was hiding something.

There seems to me to be a case for amending the rules about interviewing people after charging them, not for holding people for three months without charge.

I coule be wrong but I believe that the rules of evidence as they stand would dictate that a judge should direct a jury that they should not draw adverse inferences from a suspect's silence.

 

[JHE]

I coule be wrong but I believe that the rules of evidence as they stand would dictate that a judge should direct a jury that they should not draw adverse inferences from a suspect's silence.

I think that was changed a few years ago and the 'caution' given before interviewing a suspect was changed correspondingly.

 

[magneze]

Yes, but I think pdxm's point there is that if the suspect chooses not to answer questions before being charged, the court can be told that and the jury might infer that the accused person was hiding something.

Indeed, but you might hope that there was a little more evidence of terrorist activity than "he ain't talkin', guv".

There seems to me to be a case for amending the rules about interviewing people after charging them, not for holding people for three months without charge.

That seems to be a slightly more sensible position ...

 

[Poi E]

I think that was changed a few years ago and the 'caution' given before interviewing a suspect was changed correspondingly.

Hell, you guys have been sliding for a while.