With "42 days" back in the news, the issue of pre-charge detention is 
again being discussed in the media, e.g. consider Andy Hayman's article 
in the Times 
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4887157.ece). 


The Times is also reporting that, privately, the government has decided 
not to press ahead with 42 days using the Parliament Act, should the 
measure be defeated in the Lords 
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece).

However, ISTM unlikely that the issue will die completely. Andy Hayman 
still argues that the increasing complexity of terrorist cases means the 
current 28 day limit may not be enough in future, even as he makes the 
case for abandoning the current proposals.

I also suspect that were another terrorist attack to occur whilst this 
government is still in power, some extension of the pre-charge detention 
period will again be sought in its wake, with 42 days or longer being 
possible depending on the severity of the attack.

Part of the problem here is that no matter how long you give the police, 
they are likely at some point to run up against the limit and demand 
more, or demand more on the basis that they are going to run up against 
the limit in future.

Look at it from their point of view. They've got someone they suspect of 
involvement in terrorism in custody, but don't yet have enough evidence 
to charge or even if they do have enough evidence to charge, they'd like 
to firm up the case before doing so to maximise the possibility of the 
CPS deciding to prosecute and the case succeeding. In both cases, they 
have an incentive to use up whatever time is available to them before 
making a charge or deciding to release the suspect. Only when there's 
already a clear-cut case (to them) for either releasing or bringing the 
charge will they decide not to use the full time available.

Opponents of long, or even indefinite periods of pre-charge detention 
thus need to be clear about just exactly why it is wrong for someone to 
be held for such a long time, and why their preferred period should be 
chosen. David Davis has argued for the retention of the existing 28 day 
limit, on the grounds that he had not seen any evidence to justify 
revising the limit upward, but also that he thought 28 days as being 
about right based on the evidence he'd seen so far.

Important as his stand against 42 days has been in highlighting the 
paucity of evidence for increasing the limit from 28 days, his argument 
seems vulnerable to me to any future case where the police charge a 
suspect with a terrorist offence on the basis of evidence they discover 
on say 27th day of detention. I suspect Andy Hayman would, on hearing of 
such a case, or at least a few such cases, conclude that the time had 
come to increase the current limit.

ISTM several issues need to be added to the debate:

* In a free country, we should surely minimise the impact coming under 
suspicion of a crime has on someone who is innocent? Detaining people 
for long periods without charging them is contrary to this imperative.

* The longer someone is held, the bigger the impact is on their lives 
and on their health. Hold someone for a couple of days, and they can 
probably pick up their life again reasonably easily. Hold them for a 
month, and with a bit of work they'll probably be able to rebuild their 
lives afterwards, but they might have to get a new job or a new home. 
Hold them for several months and they'll have a hard time rebuilding 
their lives afterwards. The fact is a prolonged period of detention is 
likely to destroy someone's life, and should not be imposed on them 
unless there is solid evidence against them.

* The longer someone is held and interrogated for, the more likely 
they'll crack under the pressure and confess to something just to end 
the interrogations.

* The fact that evidence is discovered late on in a detention period 
does not necessarily mean it could not have been discovered earlier if 
more resources were deployed. It may even have surfaced so late due to 
incompetence.

* ISTM the bulk of investigation should be occurring *prior* to the 
arrest, not afterwards (see the first point).

But the question arises how do we get from these points to saying 
something like "we should only hold people for 2 days at most", even for 
investigating terrorist offences?

James

On 6 Oct, 20:48, James Hammerton  wrote:
> With "42 days" back in the news, the issue of pre-charge detention is
> again being discussed in the media, e.g. consider Andy Hayman's article
> in the Times
> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor...).
>
> The Times is also reporting that, privately, the government has decided
> not to press ahead with 42 days using the Parliament Act, should the
> measure be defeated in the Lords
> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece).
>
> However, ISTM unlikely that the issue will die completely. Andy Hayman
> still argues that the increasing complexity of terrorist cases means the
> current 28 day limit may not be enough in future, even as he makes the
> case for abandoning the current proposals.
>
> I also suspect that were another terrorist attack to occur whilst this
> government is still in power, some extension of the pre-charge detention
> period will again be sought in its wake, with 42 days or longer being
> possible depending on the severity of the attack.
>
> Part of the problem here is that no matter how long you give the police,
> they are likely at some point to run up against the limit and demand
> more, or demand more on the basis that they are going to run up against
> the limit in future.
>
> Look at it from their point of view. They've got someone they suspect of
> involvement in terrorism in custody, but don't yet have enough evidence
> to charge or even if they do have enough evidence to charge, they'd like
> to firm up the case before doing so to maximise the possibility of the
> CPS deciding to prosecute and the case succeeding. In both cases, they
> have an incentive to use up whatever time is available to them before
> making a charge or deciding to release the suspect. Only when there's
> already a clear-cut case (to them) for either releasing or bringing the
> charge will they decide not to use the full time available.
>
> Opponents of long, or even indefinite periods of pre-charge detention
> thus need to be clear about just exactly why it is wrong for someone to
> be held for such a long time, and why their preferred period should be
> chosen. David Davis has argued for the retention of the existing 28 day
> limit, on the grounds that he had not seen any evidence to justify
> revising the limit upward, but also that he thought 28 days as being
> about right based on the evidence he'd seen so far.
>
> Important as his stand against 42 days has been in highlighting the
> paucity of evidence for increasing the limit from 28 days, his argument
> seems vulnerable to me to any future case where the police charge a
> suspect with a terrorist offence on the basis of evidence they discover
> on say 27th day of detention. I suspect Andy Hayman would, on hearing of
> such a case, or at least a few such cases, conclude that the time had
> come to increase the current limit.
>
> ISTM several issues need to be added to the debate:
>
> * In a free country, we should surely minimise the impact coming under
> suspicion of a crime has on someone who is innocent? Detaining people
> for long periods without charging them is contrary to this imperative.
>
> * The longer someone is held, the bigger the impact is on their lives
> and on their health. Hold someone for a couple of days, and they can
> probably pick up their life again reasonably easily. Hold them for a
> month, and with a bit of work they'll probably be able to rebuild their
> lives afterwards, but they might have to get a new job or a new home.
> Hold them for several months and they'll have a hard time rebuilding
> their lives afterwards. The fact is a prolonged period of detention is
> likely to destroy someone's life, and should not be imposed on them
> unless there is solid evidence against them.
>
> * The longer someone is held and interrogated for, the more likely
> they'll crack under the pressure and confess to something just to end
> the interrogations.
>
> * The fact that evidence is discovered late on in a detention period
> does not necessarily mean it could not have been discovered earlier if
> more resources were deployed. It may even have surfaced so late due to
> incompetence.
>
> * ISTM the bulk of investigation should be occurring *prior* to the
> arrest, not afterwards (see the first point).
>
> But the question arises how do we get from these points to saying
> something like "we should only hold people for 2 days at most", even for
> investigating terrorist offences?
>
> James

24 hrs. Right to silence reinstated, plus all the other rights that
Thatchperv and Bliar removed, a general disempowerment of the police
and state. Much more human rights protection. Much more civil rights
protection. less 'police/BNP pervs  on the beat'. No more wars of
aggresion launched by politricktion fildth etc etc etc.

grimus107@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 6 Oct, 20:48, James Hammerton  wrote:
>> With "42 days" back in the news, the issue of pre-charge detention is
>> again being discussed in the media, e.g. consider Andy Hayman's article
>> in the Times
>> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor...).
>>
>> The Times is also reporting that, privately, the government has decided
>> not to press ahead with 42 days using the Parliament Act, should the
>> measure be defeated in the Lords
>> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece).
>>
>> However, ISTM unlikely that the issue will die completely. Andy Hayman
>> still argues that the increasing complexity of terrorist cases means the
>> current 28 day limit may not be enough in future, even as he makes the
>> case for abandoning the current proposals.
>>
>> I also suspect that were another terrorist attack to occur whilst this
>> government is still in power, some extension of the pre-charge detention
>> period will again be sought in its wake, with 42 days or longer being
>> possible depending on the severity of the attack.
>>
>> Part of the problem here is that no matter how long you give the police,
>> they are likely at some point to run up against the limit and demand
>> more, or demand more on the basis that they are going to run up against
>> the limit in future.
>>
>> Look at it from their point of view. They've got someone they suspect of
>> involvement in terrorism in custody, but don't yet have enough evidence
>> to charge or even if they do have enough evidence to charge, they'd like
>> to firm up the case before doing so to maximise the possibility of the
>> CPS deciding to prosecute and the case succeeding. In both cases, they
>> have an incentive to use up whatever time is available to them before
>> making a charge or deciding to release the suspect. Only when there's
>> already a clear-cut case (to them) for either releasing or bringing the
>> charge will they decide not to use the full time available.
>>
>> Opponents of long, or even indefinite periods of pre-charge detention
>> thus need to be clear about just exactly why it is wrong for someone to
>> be held for such a long time, and why their preferred period should be
>> chosen. David Davis has argued for the retention of the existing 28 day
>> limit, on the grounds that he had not seen any evidence to justify
>> revising the limit upward, but also that he thought 28 days as being
>> about right based on the evidence he'd seen so far.
>>
>> Important as his stand against 42 days has been in highlighting the
>> paucity of evidence for increasing the limit from 28 days, his argument
>> seems vulnerable to me to any future case where the police charge a
>> suspect with a terrorist offence on the basis of evidence they discover
>> on say 27th day of detention. I suspect Andy Hayman would, on hearing of
>> such a case, or at least a few such cases, conclude that the time had
>> come to increase the current limit.
>>
>> ISTM several issues need to be added to the debate:
>>
>> * In a free country, we should surely minimise the impact coming under
>> suspicion of a crime has on someone who is innocent? Detaining people
>> for long periods without charging them is contrary to this imperative.
>>
>> * The longer someone is held, the bigger the impact is on their lives
>> and on their health. Hold someone for a couple of days, and they can
>> probably pick up their life again reasonably easily. Hold them for a
>> month, and with a bit of work they'll probably be able to rebuild their
>> lives afterwards, but they might have to get a new job or a new home.
>> Hold them for several months and they'll have a hard time rebuilding
>> their lives afterwards. The fact is a prolonged period of detention is
>> likely to destroy someone's life, and should not be imposed on them
>> unless there is solid evidence against them.
>>
>> * The longer someone is held and interrogated for, the more likely
>> they'll crack under the pressure and confess to something just to end
>> the interrogations.
>>
>> * The fact that evidence is discovered late on in a detention period
>> does not necessarily mean it could not have been discovered earlier if
>> more resources were deployed. It may even have surfaced so late due to
>> incompetence.
>>
>> * ISTM the bulk of investigation should be occurring *prior* to the
>> arrest, not afterwards (see the first point).
>>
>> But the question arises how do we get from these points to saying
>> something like "we should only hold people for 2 days at most", even for
>> investigating terrorist offences?
>>
>> James
> 
> 24 hrs.

What's special about 24 hours? Why not 12? or 48?

James

"James Hammerton"  wrote in message 
news:6kvdemF9t71cU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> 24 hrs.
>
> What's special about 24 hours?
You might still have a job at the end of it?  No surprise therefore that so 
many of the Labourite cunts supporting 42 days internment are unemployed 
parasites.

James Hammerton  posted
snip
>But the question arises how do we get from these points to saying 
>something like "we should only hold people for 2 days at most", even 
>for investigating terrorist offences?

I would say it works the other way around. The presumption should be 
that you are not detained at all. The people who want to detain you 
should be required to justify every day - every hour, really - that they 
are holding you.

There are certain practicalities - essentially court opening times - 
that may mean that 24-hour detention may sometimes be necessary. After 
that, a senior police officer should be required to go to court every 
single day and explain exactly what work the police have done on the 
case in the past 24 hours and what work they plan to do in the next 24. 
Each day the court can compare what the police previously said they were 
going to do and what they actually did do, regarding any discrepancy as 
an argument for releasing the suspect. The police must also state what 
progress they have made towards a charge, and what expectations they now 
have of requesting further detention. These statements must be sworn by 
individual named officers so that they can be later prosecuted for 
perjury and PCJ if they are subsequently shown to have lied.

The detainee should have the opportunity to question these claims, 
explain the hardship he is being caused, and apply for bail. The 
presumption every day should be in favour of release. Also, every time 
the police apply for a further day's detention, they should be required 
to pay a sum into court to compensate the detainee and his family for 
any demonstrable financial loss they have suffered, as well as for the 
inconvenience.  These daily payments should be set to increase very 
rapidly as the detention is extended.

If the detainee is subsequently released without charge he should have 
free access to a process whereby the police will have to justify their 
actions in court, and suffer legal penalties including the prosecution 
of individual officers if found to have acted unlawfully.

-- 
Les

Big Les Wade wrote:
> James Hammerton  posted
> snip
>> But the question arises how do we get from these points to saying 
>> something like "we should only hold people for 2 days at most", even 
>> for investigating terrorist offences?
> 
> I would say it works the other way around. The presumption should be 
> that you are not detained at all. The people who want to detain you 
> should be required to justify every day - every hour, really - that they 
> are holding you.
> 
> There are certain practicalities - essentially court opening times - 
> that may mean that 24-hour detention may sometimes be necessary. After 
> that, a senior police officer should be required to go to court every 
> single day and explain exactly what work the police have done on the 
> case in the past 24 hours and what work they plan to do in the next 24. 
> Each day the court can compare what the police previously said they were 
> going to do and what they actually did do, regarding any discrepancy as 
> an argument for releasing the suspect. The police must also state what 
> progress they have made towards a charge, and what expectations they now 
> have of requesting further detention. These statements must be sworn by 
> individual named officers so that they can be later prosecuted for 
> perjury and PCJ if they are subsequently shown to have lied.
> 
> The detainee should have the opportunity to question these claims, 
> explain the hardship he is being caused, and apply for bail. The 
> presumption every day should be in favour of release. Also, every time 
> the police apply for a further day's detention, they should be required 
> to pay a sum into court to compensate the detainee and his family for 
> any demonstrable financial loss they have suffered, as well as for the 
> inconvenience.  These daily payments should be set to increase very 
> rapidly as the detention is extended.
> 
> If the detainee is subsequently released without charge he should have 
> free access to a process whereby the police will have to justify their 
> actions in court, and suffer legal penalties including the prosecution 
> of individual officers if found to have acted unlawfully.
> 
A most interesting suggestion, thanks.

James

On Oct 6, 8:48 pm, James Hammerton  wrote:
>
> * The fact that evidence is discovered late on in a detention period
> does not necessarily mean it could not have been discovered earlier if
> more resources were deployed. It may even have surfaced so late due to
> incompetence.

This is a big problem with extending the time.  It may lead to a
reduction in urgency.

It should only take a few days to trawl through telephone and computer
records.  This is a task that can be completed more quickly simply by
adding more people.  If this can't be achieved in 28 days, I find it
hard to believe that 42 days or even 90 days would consistently be
enough.  If a geek with 5 PCs and several thousand DVDs is arrested,
how long will it take to sift through that?

If they arrest someone, and decide to hold them they must at least
have some sort of a case against them already.  Most of the time there
will be sufficient evidence to convict them of something.  I expect
this is actually what happens most of the time when they charge them
after 27 days.

So obviously there's a problem caused by charging them.  What is this
problem?  Does this prevent them from making further charges at a
later date or cause some other complication?  If so, perhaps that's
what needs to be addressed.

On Oct 6, 10:15 pm, James Hammerton  wrote:
> grimus...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > 24 hrs.
>
> What's special about 24 hours? Why not 12? or 48?
>
24 hours simply requires that there is someone available to make a
decision 7 days a week, and gives them time to make a decision.  If
you charge someone with terrorism I think you want a high ranking
officer to make the call. You might need to get the chief in at the
weekend but that's the price of a senior position.

48 hours doesn't get you anything extra.72 might but seems a high cost
just to avoid having someone work an occasional 6 day week.

12 hours?  The police take someone in at 7pm on a Friday.  Takes them
a couple of hours to decide this is the guy they want. It means they
need to get the high ranking officer in by 7am.  This would require
that someone is on call at all times.  Could be done but the 12 extra
hours of detention isn't that great a hardship.

In uk.legal grimus107@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> 
> 24 hrs. Right to silence reinstated, plus all the other rights that
> Thatchperv and Bliar removed, a general disempowerment of the police
> and state. Much more human rights protection. Much more civil rights

At least for the general public. Maybe serving police officers and
goverment ministers should be subject to the possibility of 42 days
detention without charge and similar.

> protection. less 'police/BNP pervs  on the beat'. No more wars of
> aggresion launched by politricktion fildth etc etc etc.
> 
>