header-logo header-logo

Terror detention halved

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

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Control orders will be repealed, although the home secretary will continue to be able to impose restrictions on suspects’ movement, association and travel on the basis of “reasonable belief”.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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll