Draft Detention Of Terrorist Suspects Temporary Extension Bills

The Joint Committee scrutinised the Home Office's draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills, which could be enacted urgently if it ever became necessary to extend to 28 days the maximum period for which the police could apply to a High Court judge detain terrorist suspects before charging them. The Committee agrees with the Government's objective, but does not accept the Government's proposals for achieving the objective. When provisions of this kind needed to be introduced after individuals had been arrested; it would be almost impossible to give Parliament the information it would need to scrutinise the legislation adequately without putting at risk a suspect's right to have a fair trial. In addition there is a risk that, if the provision was required in a period of parliamentary recess or dissolution, legislation could not be introduced in time, or at all. The Committee recommends, instead, the introduction of legislation to empower the Secretary of State to make an executive order (with the agreement of the Attorney General and subject to rigorous safeguards), that would temporarily extend the maximum period available for pre-charge detention to 28 days. There would have to be an independent review of the case for making such an order. The Director of Public Prosecutions would continue to be responsible for applications to a High Court judge in individual cases. The Secretary of State would be accountable to Parliament for the decision once there was no longer any risk of prejudicing judicial proceedings.

Government response to HL paper 161, HC paper 893, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780108473531)

The draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill is intended to be introduced by the Government in response to "exceptional circumstances" which "cannot be managed by any other means". It is complementary to, and if introduced will operate alongside, the existing TPIMs legislation (as set out in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011). If approved by Parliament, this Bill will allow the Government to impose a series of restrictive measures, broadly similar to those available under the control order regime, on certain targeted individuals. The Committee accepted the need for such measures as a preventative tool against suspected terrorists but raised concerns about the role of Parliament in approving their introduction and the threat to security created by "time-limiting" the legislation. To safeguard and better monitor their use, the Committee further called on the Government to institute higher standards of legal review of any use of this legislation.

This report welcomes the enhanced human rights protection which the Protection of Freedoms Bill (HC 189, ISBN 9780215558091) would provide, by proposing to repeal or reform measures which impinge on rights and freedoms. But this protection should be strengthened further in some areas. The Committee welcomes the Government's review of existing powers of entry to private properties, including homes, which has identified around 1200 statutory powers with associated powers of entry. But it is deeply concerned that the proposed breadth of proposals in the Bill could create new risks to individual rights by authorising the Government to extend existing powers of entry. The provisions relating to biometric material create a less intrusive mechanism for the retention of DNA and fingerprints. However, the Bill creates some unjustified risks to the individual right to privacy and the Government should provide further justification or amend the Bill significantly. There should be new safeguards in relation to the processing of children's biometric information. The Committee welcomes the proposal for a surveillance code to regulate the operation of CCTV by public authorities, and the permanent reduction in the maximum period of pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects to 14 days. However, it questions whether the need to provide for a contingency power to extend the period of pre-charge detention in the event of a future emergency is supported by the evidence. The Committee also supports changing the Public Order Act 1986 to remove all reference to public order offences based upon insulting words or behaviour.

Dorle Hellmuth measures and compares how different parliamentary and presidential government structures affect counterterrorism decision-making and domestic counterterrorism responses in the United States, Germany, Great Britain, and France after 9/11.

Preventive detention as a counter-terrorism tool is fraught with conceptual and procedural problems and risks of misuse, excess and abuse. Many have debated the inadequacies of the current legal frameworks for detention, and the need for finding the most appropriate legal model to govern detention of terror suspects that might serve as a global paradigm. This book offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of the detention of terror suspects under domestic criminal law, the law of armed conflict and international human rights law. The book looks comparatively at the law in a number of key jurisdictions including the USA, the UK, Israel, France, India, Australia and Canada and in turn compares this to preventive detention under the law of armed conflict and various human rights treaties. The book demonstrates that the procedures governing the use of preventive detention are deficient in each framework and that these deficiencies often have an adverse and serious impact on the human rights of detainees, thereby delegitimizing the use of preventive detention. Based on her investigation Diane Webber puts forward a new approach to preventive detention, setting out ten key minimum criteria drawn from international human rights principles and best practices from domestic laws. The minimum criteria are designed to cure the current flaws and deficiencies and provide a base line of guidance for the many countries that choose to use preventive detention, in a way that both respects human rights and maintains security.