So much for terrorists then?

[detective-boy]

They can hold people for up to 28 days under terror legislation.

And that could very well be in a single, unshared cell.

They can detain for up to 28 days, but they didn't in this case, did they? And that is what we are discussing here.

And solitary confinement is not having an unshared cell - unshared cells are an aspiration of the bloody prison system ... solitary confinement is precisely that - no contact of any sort with any person. Let's have some examples of that actually happening in police stations then, shall we?

 

[TAE]

24 hours with regular review by an Inspector; 36 hours on authorisation by a Superintendent and then maximum of 96 hours on authorisation by a Magistrate.

Ok, the 24 hour period is what I was thinking of, after that they have to get higher and higher approval.

 

[Andy the Don]

If ther were hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane it would diprove the hole too small arguement. But there were witnesses that say that the was no wreakage of a plane seen. In the photo you can not see any plane wreakage either and you can see plane wreakage if you see any other photo of a plane crash. The wreakage that was seen is thuogh not to have been plane wreakage by some witnesses. I still smell a rat over 9/11

Well what's in this image then. My word it looks like part of a commercial aeroplane..

Bob Jones you talk crap..

 

[Jografer]

Well what's in this image then. My word it looks like part of a commercial aeroplane.

you are so NAIVE... it's well known that bits of old planes were planted by Elvis to take the heat off the lizards...

 

[jiggajagga]

24 hours with regular review by an Inspector; 36 hours on authorisation by a Superintendent and then maximum of 96 hours on authorisation by a Magistrate.

At every review stage, and on each application, it needs to be demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence with a power of arrest has been committed AND that the continued detention of the person is necessary to investigate that offence AND that the investigation is being progressed expeditiously.

The extensions beyond 24 hours can only be made in relation to the more serious offences ... but if you think 96 hours is too much to investigate some serious offences you are wrong - it is frequently nowhere near enough - many scientific tests, examinations of computers/phones, etc. will have hardly begun, let alone been completed!

On questiontime last night Alan Johnson ( Dep leader contest) said he would like to hold people for a year if suspected of terrorism!!
Ony if the secret service had EVIDENCE though....Is this the same secret service that gave us the EVIDENCE of WMD in Iraq I wonder?

 

[Blagsta]

So Osama Bin laden is real and Bush is not having us on?

Yes, Osama Bin Laden is a real person.

 

[detective-boy]

Ok, the 24 hour period is what I was thinking of, after that they have to get higher and higher approval.

Yep. And at each stage the suspects solicitor can make representations.

 

[detective-boy]

On questiontime last night Alan Johnson ( Dep leader contest) said he would like to hold people for a year if suspected of terrorism!!
Ony if the secret service had EVIDENCE though....Is this the same secret service that gave us the EVIDENCE of WMD in Iraq I wonder?

I heard that ...

There are real problems dealing with people where there are very real grounds to suspect their involvement but, for whatever reason, there is insufficient evidence to bring them before a court or, if prosecuted, they have been acquitted.

Part of it is our continued refusal to use phone intercept material in evidence - we must be the only fuckwits in the world still not doing it ... But other aspects are not so simple to address and, perhaps, are incapable of resolution.

I am not in favour of holding people without charge personally, but I accpet that the inevitable outcome of that is that people we know are potentially dangerous will be at large and, with the best will in the world, surveillance of them will never be perfect and will largely be entirely impracticable. That, though, is one of the prices we must pay for living in a basically free democracy.

Any evidence should be made know to a suspect or defendant and should be tested in a broadly normal court process (there is some scope for in camera sessions, reporting restrictions, and such like).

(And to be fair to the secret service, I'm not sure it was their "evidence" about WMD, as opposed to how the stuff they did provide was spun / exaggerated / used by politicians, which was the problem)

 

[jiggajagga]

(And to be fair to the secret service, I'm not sure it was their "evidence" about WMD, as opposed to how the stuff they did provide was spun / exaggerated / used by politicians, which was the problem)

Go on then DB! I'll give you that one.

Can we arrest him then please?

 

[Azrael]

The extensions beyond 24 hours can only be made in relation to the more serious offences ... but if you think 96 hours is too much to investigate some serious offences you are wrong - it is frequently nowhere near enough - many scientific tests, examinations of computers/phones, etc. will have hardly begun, let alone been completed!

Has anyone seriously claimed that you could have a complex investigation done and dusted in 24 hours?

This about how long you can justify detaining someone without a prima facie case. You can clearly run a justice system with a maximum of 24 hours' detention-without-charge: Canada, Australia and Eire, to name just three. Other countries get round it with methods such as arresting late in an investigation, interviewing before an arrest, and authorising powers like sample collection with warrants.

We're in dangerous territory when we claim that the rights of an individual suspect conflict with the "common good". Without individual rights none of us is safe. We've got to stop horse-trading away our liberties in the name of some ultra-safe utopia that's never going to come.

 

[detective-boy]

Has anyone seriously claimed that you could have a complex investigation done and dusted in 24 hours?

This about how long you can justify detaining someone without a prima facie case. You can clearly run a justice system with a maximum of 24 hours' detention-without-charge: Canada, Australia and Eire, to name just three. Other countries get round it with methods such as arresting late in an investigation, interviewing before an arrest, and authorising powers like sample collection with warrants.

All of which can be done here ... but all of which do nothing to prevent the suspects fleeing, committing further offences, interfering with evidence or whatever. NONE of these methods are used widely anywhere as their practicality is severely flawed.

The UK used to run quite happily on 24 hours when we charged on a prima facie case. The CPS changed all that, to save court time by reducing the number of cases which later fell apart and reducing the number of people tried before being acquitted (both of which are good things in themselves).

I would be more than happy to see prima facie case charging brought back for serious cases, where extensive further enquiries are required which cannot be expedited (some things simply do take time) and which do not require the person to remain in custody. This would minimise the chances of actually guilty people being released and fleeing, etc. and minimise the chances of extended detention for someone later to be acquitted. A change from prima facie to the current CPS "prosecution likely to succeed" standard could be introduced at any stage (28 days, 90 days or whatever) to restrict the change. But I think it would need the opportunity to interview again in that intervening period before final charge (they are currently talking about allowing interview post charge - that needen't be introduced, just post initial prima facie charge).

 

[Azrael]

Interesting idea. Sounds eminently sensible ... which of course guarantees it won't be considered, and instead we'll get more dick-waving nonsense about "a year's detention without charge". No doubt the parody 900 days will become a serious proposition before too long.

It says a lot about a country when the population judges a politician's strength by how long they're willing to deny people their rights. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything good.