skip to nav

Longer terrorist detention

ARGUMENTS FOR:

Terrorism is the ultimate threat to a civilised society. Every conceivable step must be taken to prevent further outrages like 7/7, whatever corners have to be cut.

Technology and identity theft are now so complicated that it takes longer than the present permitted 28 days over which a terror suspect can be held to analyse computer data and check phone records.

Terrorism is international. Time-consuming inquiries will often have to be made across the globe involving foreign police and security services.

After charging, many suspects are held on remand in prison for long periods - in terrorist trials often more than two years. Under these circumstances, even 90 days in police custody is scarcely a violation of liberty.

Extended periods of detention would be closely monitored by High Court judges, who would not allow the police to abuse their powers.

The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

Holding suspects without charge for long periods moves towards the sort of police state the British abhor. Ninety days - the length of time the Government last sought - is the equivalent of a six-month prison sentence less remission.

It is unnecessary. Even John Reid admits that the police, who back an extended period of remand, have not yet encountered a case in which their investigations have been hampered by having to release a suspect.

It discourages diligent police work. If detectives know they can detain someone for three months, they have limited incentive to operate fast and efficiently.

These long periods of detention would, inevitably, be served mainly by members of the Muslim community, further alienating young Muslims.

Detention without trial damages Britain in the eyes of the world. Other nations, notably in Europe, would accuse Britain of sliding towards Guantanamo Bay.

FIRST POSTED FEBRUARY 2, 2007

News & Comment: News & Politics