header-logo header-logo

02 February 2011
Issue: 7451 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Terror detention halved

Council snoops out in new “control orders-lite” plan

The maximum length of time terror suspects can be detained without being charged is to be reduced from 28 days to 14, the Home Office has announced.

Section 44 “stop and search” powers will be replaced by narrower powers allowing a senior police officer to authorise stop and search where they have reason to suspect a terrorist attack and searches are necessary to prevent it.
Control orders will be repealed, although the home secretary will continue to be able to impose restrictions on suspects’ movement, association and travel on the basis of “reasonable belief”.

The annual requirement to review counter-terrorism laws has been dropped.
Local authorities will see their surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act restricted to serious offences that carry a six-month jail sentence and where a magistrate has authorised their use, putting an end to council snooping. Last year, Poole Council was ruled to have unlawfully spied on a family to check they lived within the school catchment area.

The changes are part of a package of reforms announced by the Home Office last week following its review of counter-terrorism powers.
Civil liberties groups have welcomed the review, but questioned the need for continued restrictions on suspects who have not been charged with a criminal offence.

Liberty branded the control orders replacement “control order-lite”. Its director, Shami Chakrabarti says: “We welcome movement on stop and search, 28-day detention and council snooping, but when it comes to ending punishment without trial, the government appears to have bottled it.

“Spin and semantics aside, control orders are retained and rebranded, if in a slightly lower fat form. As before, the innocent may be punished without a fair hearing and the guilty will escape the full force of criminal law.”

Eric Metcalfe, Justice’s director of human rights policy, says: “Criminal prosecution remains the only just and effective way of dealing with suspected terrorists.

“Seven men absconded under the control order regime. It seems even less likely that any serious terrorist would be stopped by the watered-down version announced today.”

Issue: 7451 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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