Assuming the spineless Labour MP’s give gave in tonight and the
90 28 day maximum period of detention remains was inserted in the Terrorism Bill, I’ve been
trying to work out the likely practical effect on a suspect arrested under these
provisions.
Forget all that nonsense about, “ the provisions will only
be used in a handful of cases”. It’s my guess that in just about all cases in
which a young muslim suspect is arrested under the terrorist legislation, the police will be making an
application for their 90 28 days. It would be no good waiting for three or four
days and then making their application.
The detainee will be given notice of the hearing, and he is entitled to representation BUT the judge is authorised to exclude, specifically, the suspect and anyone representing him from the hearing. And what criteria does the judge use to extend the period of detention? The Bill allows the police the extended period:
(a) to
obtain relevant evidence whether by questioning him or otherwise;
(b) to
preserve relevant evidence; or
(c)
pending the result of an examination or analysis of any relevant evidence or of
anything the examination or analysis of which is to be or is being carried out
with a view to obtaining relevant evidence.”
I doubt any judge would refuse an application based on (c).
So off goes the suspect for a
potential 90 28 days where? Well, not Belmarsh. The present Police and Criminal Evidence Act prevents detention in prison.
Gareth Peirce in today’s Guardian
describes the detention conditions of some of her clients under the previous
14-day provision.
“I find it impossible to believe that the grim unpleasantness of the cells can be anything other than intended, especially given the costly revamp. It has left 365 hideous white tiles on the walls of each cell (as an Irishman counted some years ago). There is a hard plastic mattress on a wooden plank, with an open toilet at one end. A bare light in the high ceiling is difficult enough to read by, but the life-saving distraction of reading matter is more often than not forbidden. There is no natural light; the 14 days of detention are spent in an underworld without fresh air or proper ventilation - an inescapable part of the anticipated experience. In warm weather, heat comes from pipes under the bunk. In cold weather, unpleasant-smelling oil heaters are pushed uselessly into the corridors.”
Now the police continue the rummage for
evidence to support a charge, subject to Blair’s much heralded “judicial
oversight”. Note the expression “oversight”.
Today, we know nothing about this, except
there are reviews every 7 days and if the judge is not happy about the way the
investigation is going on, he can order the suspect’s release. What are the
arrangements for these weekly trips to the court? We know the police want the
suspects excluded. We know they want the defendant’s solicitor excluded. We
know the police want the suspect to be denied counsel of his or her choice,
excluded. They want those unemployed Special Advocates from the Special
Immigration Commission to represent the detainee. A system described as “fatally flawed” by the All
Party Constitutional Affairs Committee in April this year.
Alan Beith MP for Berwick on Tweed and
chairman of the Committee said this:
"The special advocate system lacks the most basic features that make for a fair trial. To deprive someone of their liberty without telling them the charge or the evidence is completely foreign to our system of justice. At present, special advocates are allowed almost no contact with those they are representing once they have seen the closed material. This should be reviewed as a matter of urgency."
And I suspect there will be much “closed material” or secret documents in these cases.
So just get out of your mind those bail applications during which the prosecution and defence have just about an equal crack of the judicial whip. And what criteria are used to measure the progress of the police investigation? There is already a body of rules and case law here.
After a month, the police have come up with some evidence. They would like to interview the detainee. Do the police really think that anything arising from that interview would be admissible?
Still too many unanswered questions !
