Better- well not really.

Today Brian Barder suggests this:

"But the present regime of control orders, unwillingly swallowed by Parliament last March on condition that it would be reviewed and could be amended or repealed late this year or early in 2006, is yet more undesirable. There is a strong case for trading the repeal of control orders, whose purpose is similar, in exchange for firm guarantees that terrorist suspects detained for questioning and investigation without charge for longer than two weeks would be effectively monitored by a security-cleared judge. The judge would have full access to the relevant investigation, and be mandated to order the suspect’s release at any time unless satisfied that longer detention was proportionate and genuinely necessary on security grounds, that the investigation was being pursued with maximum speed and vigour, and that specific charges and a jury trial were likely to follow."

So no function for either counsel or solicitor in this process? I’m not sure I would be happy for a judge-even a security cleared one- sitting alone to determine whether my client remains incarcerated.

There are circumstances in which sensitive information cannot be disclosed, but you if want to go along that route to what is essentially a bail decision, the detained person as a minimum, requires a special advocate to challenge both judge and presumably prosecution. Not perfect, but at least there is an attempt at what human rights jurisprudence calls “ equality of arms”.

Comments

[Brian Barder]

I have offered a comment (I won't claim that it's a reply) on this on my own blog. But these are highly subjective matters. I continue to think that a limited and monitored extension of the period allowed for detention during investigation with a view to a charge and trial in court is vastly preferable to control orders, which are indefinite, not subject to proper monitoring or an adequate appeal process, and never come before an ordinary court, although the penalty imposed will generally be only marginally less damaging to the individual concerned than detention in a prison or remand centre. Hence my suggestion that parliament should agree to the extended investigative detention period only in exchange for a repeal of the control orders. I believe this would be a good bargain, although I have no very high hopes that the government would agree to it. No doubt we shall end up with both. Half a loaf would be better than no bread, surely?

Brian