header-logo header-logo

15 November 2007
Issue: 7297 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

UK tops Liberty terror holding chart

News

UK terrorist pre-charge detention powers—which the government is proposing to extend still further—already far exceed those in other comparable democracies, a new Liberty study shows.

The research, Terrorism Pre-charge Detention—Comparative Law Study, based on advice and assistance from lawyers and academics around the world, looked at 15 countries, including past and current potential terror targets such as the US, Spain, Russia, and Turkey.

None of these countries is allowed to hold terror suspects without charge for anything close to the 28 days British police are allowed, and yet the government is currently pushing to raise the limit to 56 days.
The US constitution limits pre-charge detention to 48 hours, Russian police are allowed to detain without charge for five days, while Turkish criminal law only permits 7.5 days’ detention before charge.

The report’s editor, Jago Russell, says the study provides further evidence that an increase beyond 28 days can not be justified.
“How can our government argue that the UK needs to hold people for over a month when the US can only hold people for two days and Canada just one?,” he says.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti says: “Ministers have rightly lectured generals in Burma and Pakistan about their rights record, but human rights, like charity, begins at home.”
 

Issue: 7297 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll