90 days detention without charge ...5 days thinking about it...

On the 6th of October 2005 Andy Hayman, QPM,MA Assistant Commander, Special Operations , New Scotland Yard wrote to Rt.Hon. Charles Clarke, the burly, bluff Home Secretary ;

“…see..attached briefing note the operational requirements for an extension to the maximum period of detention without charge to three months, for which I am a strong advocate.

Well Charley Clarke must have passed this pretty swiftly around Whitehall because on the 11th October , 5 days later, he introduced detailed legislation that met Andy’s suggestions “ …for which I am a strong advocate”.

So dramatic was the evidence, so powerful, so cogent, so self evident, so ..er..right that Tony Blair was able to tell us at his monthly Press Conference yesterday regarding Clauses Clauses 23 and 24: of the proposed Terrorist legislation extension of the period of detention by judicial authority that …If the police, charged with fighting terrorism in this country, say to me and to the Members of Parliament 'This is why we need it', and that case is a good and compelling case - as I find it is - then my duty is to do it, unless someone can come forward with a very good argument why their case is unsound."

He later told the House of Commons …”The case for allowing terror suspects to be held up to 90 days without charge is "absolutely compelling". The lying bastard went on ..

"What I have to do is to try to do my best to protect people in this country and to make sure their safety and their civil liberty to life come first.
Let us have a debate about the strength or otherwise of those proposals, but for myself I find it a convincing case."

Well you can see what was so compelling for Tony by reading Andy’s chummy letter to the Home Secretary last week. Here.

It evidently didn’t convince alleged Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy who repeated his insistence that the PM had "failed to make the case" for 3 months detention without charge or trial.

Leaderless, listless Opposition members could raise neither support nor criticism.


Lord Carlile of Berriew QC (pic)is required Pursuant to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 section 14 to prepare periodic reports on the operation of the Act. By section 14(5) his report "must contain" his opinion on
"(a) the implications for the operation of this Act of any proposal made by the Secretary of State for the amendment of the law relating to terrorism;"
He has prepared an published notes on the proposed and Draft Act;

“I do not regard extra time for interviews as being a sound basis for the extension of the time period.”…” the reality is that most suspects exercise their right of silence in interview. If they are advised so to do, that advice is usually beyond reproach…..This means that the interviewing process is rarely productive.”

“The procedure before district judges in my view has characteristics suited to short interference with liberty, and I should regret seeing it extended further. A more searching system is required to reflect the seriousness of the State holding someone in high-security custody without charge for as long as three months. I question whether what is proposed in the Bill would be proof to challenge under the Human Rights Act given the length of extended detention envisaged.”

To allow for the very rare cases where extended detention is , he considers appropriate he takes up the recommendation of The Privy Counsellor Review Committee into the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, chaired by the Rt. Hon Lord Newton of Braintree, reported in December 2003 Newton – ie suggestions that have been ignored for nearly 2 years by both David Blunkett and Charley Clarke.

· Where detention beyond 14 days is to be applied for, the introduction of one of a small group of security-cleared, designated senior circuit judges as examining judge and "judicial authority" under the legislation

· That judge to be provided with a full and continuing account of all matters involved in the investigation in question

· The introduction of a security-cleared special advocate, also fully briefed as to the investigation, to make representations on the interests of the detained persons and to advise the judge

· The judge to have the power to require specific investigations to be pursued if reasonably necessary for the proper exercise of his/her jurisdiction

· Suitable opportunity for written and oral defence representations against extended detention, with oral hearings at the discretion of the judge

· Weekly decisions with reasons if extended detention granted

· The keeping of a written record (if necessary protected from disclosure for the purposes of any subsequent trial) of the judge’s activities in a case

· Appeal with permission to the High Court.

Carlile concludes his observations;

…"A more searching system is required to reflect the seriousness of the state holding someone in high-security custody without charge for as long as three months"