1 Introduction
1. We have already reported a number of times on the main human rights issues raised by this Bill, in the following reports:
(1) Prosecution and Pre-Charge Detention[1]
(2) 28 days, intercept and post-charge questioning[2]
(3) 42 Days[3]
(4) Annual Renewal of Control Orders[4]
(5) Counter-Terrorism Bill before Second Reading[5]
(6) Counter-Terrorism Bill as it came out of Public Bill Committee.[6]
The main purpose of this Report is to comment further on certain aspects of the Bill's most controversial proposal, to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 42 days, in the light of recent developments and, in particular, in the light of the Government's indication that it will shortly be bringing forward a number of amendments to this Part of the Bill designed to meet concerns about its human rights compatibility. On 1 June 2008 the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor Jack Straw MP indicated in a television interview a number of amendments which are likely to be brought forward by the Government.[7] On 2 June the Prime Minister, in an article in The Times, argued that the Government's 42 Days proposal contains a number of practical safeguards which together ensure that the Government's response to the changing demands of national security also upholds civil liberties.[8]
2. In the light of the likely Government amendments and the Prime Minister's robust defence of the adequacy of the proposed safeguards, we focus in this Report on the question of whether those safeguards are sufficient to meet the concerns about the human rights compatibility of its 42 Days proposal. It remains our view, expressed consistently in previous reports, that the Government has failed to make its case for further extending the maximum period of pre-charge detention and that there is therefore no need to make any provision for the extension of the current maximum. We explain why the safeguards in the Bill, even after the potential Government amendments, are inadequate to protect individuals against the risk of arbitrary detention. We also spell out explicitly all the necessary safeguards in the event that the public emergency, which is the premise of the Government's proposal, were ever to materialise. We also take the opportunity to comment on the provisions in the Bill concerning the obtaining, use and disclosure of information by the intelligence services.
1 Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2005-06, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Prosecution and Pre-charge Detention, HL Paper 240/HC 1576 (hereafter "Report on Prosecution and Pre-charge Detention"). Back
2 Nineteenth Report of Session 2006-07, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 28 days, intercept and post-charge questioning, HL Paper 157/HC 394 (hereafter "Report on 28 days, intercept and post-charge questioning"). Back
3 Second Report of Session 2007-08, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 42 days, HL Paper 23/HC 156 (hereafter "Report on 42 days"). Back
4 Tenth Report of Session 2007-08, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Ninth Report): Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2008, HL Paper 57, HC 356 (hereafter "Report on Control Orders renewal"). Back
5 Ninth Report of Session 2007-08, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Eighth Report): Counter-Terrorism Bill, HL Paper 50/HC 199 (hereafter "First Report on Counter-Terrorism Bill"). Back
6 Twentieth Report of Session 2007-08, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Tenth Report): Counter-Terrorism Bill, HL Paper 108/HC 5549 (hereafter "Second Report on Counter-Terrorism Bill"). Back
7 The Andrew Marr Show, BBC1, 1 June 2008. Back
8 "42-day detention; a fair solution", The Times, 2 June 2008. Back
|