Appendix 2: Letter to Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP, Home Secretary, dated 23 May 2008
Pre-Charge Detention: 28 Days Annual Renewal
I am writing to you concerning the annual renewal of the provisions in the Terrorism Act 2006 which extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention in terrorism cases from 14 to 28 days. That extended period will expire on 25 July 2008 unless a renewal order is passed by both Houses. The laying of the draft order to renew the extended period is therefore imminent.
I am writing, first, to enquire as to what improvements you have made to the arrangements for parliamentary review of the extended period in light of our previous recommendations and, second, to request some information about the operation of the extended period since its last renewal with a view to ensuring that Parliament is fully informed when it comes to debate the draft renewal order.
Arrangements for parliamentary review
In our Report on 28 Days, Intercept and Post-Charge Questioning, published in July 2007, we made a number of specific recommendations concerning the arrangements for parliamentary review of the operation in practice of the extended period of pre-charge detention up to a maximum of 28 days. The aim of our recommendations was to ensure that there is rigorous independent scrutiny of the operation in practice of the extended period, which is made available to Parliament sufficiently in advance of the renewal debate to ensure that Parliament is fully and reliably informed about how the power has actually been working before it is asked to approve renewal of the extraordinary power for another year.
We recommended that parliamentary oversight be improved by making available to Parliament, at least a month before the renewal debate, a report by an independent reviewer on the operation in practice of the extended period and on the continued necessity for it, and a detailed annual report by the Home Secretary on the use which has been made of the power by the police. In response, you said that Lord Carlile already reports annually on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000, including on the extended period of pre-charge detention. You also said that you would be looking to ensure that there is sufficient parliamentary oversight of the pre-charge detention period as part of the consultation on the forthcoming counter-terrorism bill and would consider our recommendations as part of that consultation.
We also recommended that an appropriate independent body undertake an in-depth scrutiny of the operation in practice by the Metropolitan Police Service of the new power of pre-charge detention beyond 14 days. We suggested that the Metropolitan Police Authority, the independent statutory body charged with scrutinising the work of the Metropolitan Police Service, may be well placed to do this. You said in your response that you would consider whether there is a need for an independent body to review the operation of pre-charge detention as part of the consultation on the forthcoming counter-terrorism bill.
The Counter-Terrorism Bill, however, makes no provision for improving the existing arrangements for parliamentary review of the operation of extended pre-charge detention.
Has the Government now considered our recommendations for improving parliamentary review of extended pre-charge detention and decided to reject them? If so, we would be grateful to receive your reasons.
Lord Carlile's annual report on the Terrorism Act 2000 covers the calendar year. His forthcoming report on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 during 2007, will therefore only cover the first 5 months of the period since the last annual renewal. Furthermore, as we pointed out last year, Lord Carlile's last report on the Terrorism Act 2000 did not even state in how many cases the power to authorise extended detention had been exercised, let alone contain any detailed scrutiny of each case in which the power had been exercised.
Will Lord Carlile's annual report on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2006 during 2007 be available before the renewal debate? If so, when?
Have you asked Lord Carlile to ensure that his next report on the Terrorism Act 2000 contains a detailed analysis of the operation in practice of extended pre-charge detention?
Will any other independent reviewer be providing Parliament with any analysis of the use which has been made of the extended period?
Will you be providing your own detailed report to Parliament, in advance of the renewal debate, on the use which has been made of the power to detain without charge beyond 14 days in the year since its last renewal?
We also recommended in our Report on 28 days that, in order to help Parliament evaluate the strength of the case for extended pre-charge detention in terrorism cases, the police should in future keep data to demonstrate the number of times terrorism suspects have been released without charge and then subsequently rearrested as a result of information that had subsequently come to light as a result of searching computer hard drives or related material. In our view, such data is central to any evidence-based assessment of the adequacy of the current period. In your response to our report you said that the Home Office was working with the police to review the collation and publication of statistics relating to terrorism legislation and that statistics and information available with reference to pre-charge detention would be reviewed as part of this process.
What additional statistics or information in relation to pre-charge detention did you or the police decide to collect as a result of your joint review?
How many times in the past year has a terrorism suspect been released without charge and then subsequently rearrested, or sought for arrest, because of information which has only subsequently come to light as a result of searching computer or related material after their release?
The operation in practice of the extended period
We would be grateful if you could provide us with the following information about the operation in practice of the extended period of pre-charge detention and the continuing need for it.
In respect of how many terrorism suspects has the power of extended detention beyond 14 days been used since its renewal in July 2007? Please provide the dates on each occasion when detention was extended.
Please provide a thorough analysis of the way in which each of those suspects were dealt with, including
precisely how long after their arrest they were charged or released without charge
the reasons relied on at each application to a court for an extension of authorisation for detention
the exact charges brought against those charged
whether the Threshold Test or the Full Code Test was used when charging them.
What independent medical evidence have you sought of the psychological impact of extended pre-charge detention on those detained for more than 14 days?
In view of the imminence of the laying of the draft renewal order, I would be grateful for your response to these questions by Friday 30 May 2008.
I am copying this letter to Deputy Assistant Commissioner John McDowall, Head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter-Terrorism Command, Sue Hemming, Head of the Counter-Terrorism Division at the CPS, and Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the statutory reviewer of the terrorism legislation, who may be able to assist with the relevant information.
| 
