I'm very disappointed that Parliament voted in favour of allowing persons - against whom the police do not have enough evidence to charge them with a crime - to be incarcerated for 42 days.
First, contrast this with the current position.
General rule: release or charge within 24 hours of arriving at the police station
Exception 1: additional 12 hours detention can be authorised by a superintendent or above (with strict controls as to what issues he may and must consider)
Exception 2: if it is a 'serious arrestable offence' and further detention is necessary to secure or procure evidence (by questioning if applicable) relating to the offence then on the application of the police the magistrates (sitting privately) can authorise a further 36 hours detention
Exception 3: for the same reasons as (2), a further 36 hours detention can be authorised, but
subject to an overall limit of 96 hours detention
Once the time limit is up, the defendant must be produced before a magistrates court if the police want to remand the defendant. (Otherwise the defendant is released on 'police bail'.) At that hearing, the magistrates will hear the defendant's application for bail.
Generally, bail must be granted unless there are good grounds to apprehend:
a) that the defendant will abscond
b) that he will offend if released
c) that he will interfere with the investigation and prosecution of the offence (nobbling witnesses, 'tipping off' fellow conspirators, eg.)
(NB. As soon as c) becomes inapplicable - e.g. no-one left to tip off - the bail decision must be reconsidered.)
Now, terrorism offences are indictable, that means they must be tried in a Crown Court. The next court appearance (whether there is bail or remand), however, is before a magistrates court (which will 'commit' the defendant for trial at the Crown Court - hence the name 'committal').
Currently the rules say that 70 days may elapse between the first appearance and committal. Then a further 112 days may elapse between the committal and the commencement of trial.
Looking at the whole thing: suspected of a serious crime, you can find yourself held without charge by the police for up to 4 days before you are charged. If that's on a weekend, it might be another day before you can have a bail hearing. If you aren't granted bail, then it may be another 6 months before you get to trial. (Those time limits can also be extended in restricted circumstances.)
That means that, subject to original investigations, the police and the CPS have a further 182 days in which to, e.g., check the contents of computer hard drives, follow other lines of investigation, interview other suspects, check bank accounts, phone records, etc. etc.
Now what I want to know is - if an extra 6 weeks is indispensable - why is it necessary for those 6 weeks (as opposed to the usual 4 days) to be prior to charging the defendant? Why not extend all the other deadlines? There can even be a special exemption - if and when the police are able to satisfy a magistrate that there is a risk of 'tipping off' - whereby special provisions should apply, enabling the police to hold the suspect incommunicado for 6 weeks. And so on.
People talk of magna carta, and habeas corpus, which is all very grand. But the issue here is a simple one. The police screw up all the time. (Look at the guy who was shot on his own staircase, while he and his brother were being arrested.) It's important that they should not be in a position to steal 6 weeks from someone's life where they couldn't show a prima facie case against them within a week. No compensation will make up for the loss, and especially not for the fear and stress. Never mind what the suspect's family are going through.
What would happen if you didn't turn up for work for 4 days, without explanation? What would your nearest and dearest do if they didn't know you'd been arrested? How would they feel if you were held for another 6 weeks before the police released you, saying (e.g.) 'we know you dunnit but we can't prove it, so no compensation for you, chum'.
Next, we'll hear this. "Given that the terrorism laws enable us to keep suspects detained for 6 weeks due to the complexity of terrorism investigations, it's now time to consider whether other complex investigations should be brought in line with those provisions, rather than the antiquated 4 days we've had up to now."
I have to say I haven't admired the actions of a politician for some time so much as I do that of David Davies today. I hope the House of Lords is similarly impressed.
Bookmarks