header-logo header-logo

01 February 2008
Issue: 7306 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Procedure & practice , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Pre-charge detention extension attacked

Measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to further extend pre-charge detention in terrorism cases lack safeguards, human rights groups claim.

Measures in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to further extend pre-charge detention in terrorism cases lack safeguards, human rights groups claim.

The Bill would allow the home secretary to extend pre-charge detention for up to 42 days in terrorism cases, subject to a prior recommendation by the director of public prosecutions. However, Eric Metcalfe, JUSTICE’s director of human rights policy, says that although the Bill contains provision for subsequent debate by Parliament, there is nothing to prevent the home secretary extending the maximum period of detention to 42 days without prior Parliamentary or judicial approval.

Metcalfe says: “Scrutiny is no safeguard when there’s no evidence to scrutinise. Nor can scrutiny prevent the injustice of being held without evidence for 42 days. Phoney safeguards and a lack of evidence are no way to fight terrorism.”

Liberty has called for alternatives to the extension of precharge detention, such as the use of post-charge questioning and allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions. Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti says: “The government is right to abandon the divisive rhetoric of the ‘War on Terror’, but it must now abandon the counterproductive policies that went with it. Despite ministerial promises of exceptional circumstances and so-called safeguards, the reality of this Bill is an on-off button for six weeks’ detention without charge.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll