Ten GOOD reasons why extending pre-charge detention is a BAD idea
1. UNDERMINES one of our most basic rights, enshrined in UK law as far back as Magna Carta and now at the heart of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which UK is a signatory: the right for anyone who is detained by the state to be told promptly why they are being held and what they are charged with before being put on trial.
2. COMMUNITY relations will suffer if the Muslim community appears to be particularly targeted for prolonged pre-charge detention. This could have an impact on intelligence gathering and policing, and could undermine positive efforts to engage with Muslims in the UK.
3. IMPACT on any individuals detained for such a long time - in terms of their job, family, house, friendships and relationships within their community - would be devastating.
4. QUESTIONED widely by experts - Lord Goldsmith (former Attorney General), Stella Rimington (former MI5 Chief), Sir Ken Macdonald (Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service), Lord Woolf (former Lord Chief Justice) and parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights and Home Affairs Select Committee.
5. UNDERMINES presumption of innocence - lengthy pre-charge detention is similar to the time one might serve in prison for an offence. It would impose what is in effect a 'sentence' of six weeks on somebody who may never be charged with any crime.
6. UK ALREADY has by far the longest pre-charge detention period for offences related to terrorism of any common law state.
7. INTERNATIONAL STANDING - it is much harder for the UK to criticise the human rights records of other countries that lock people up without charge when we are doing so at home. This measure would give other countries a 'green light' to curtail civil liberties.
8. HISTORY - from Northern Ireland and Amnesty's experience all over the world - shows that locking people up without charge doesn't work.
9. STATEMENTS obtained from suspects could be deemed inadmissible at trial if detention conditions are considered to be unduly harsh.
10. SAFEGUARDS discussed are insufficient - the kind of judicial oversight proposed is little more than a parliamentary 'rubber stamp' and is in no way the same as charging someone and giving them the chance to defend themselves in a fair trial.
