Goodbye to pre-charge detention extention!

[Wednesday]

 So, there’s no evidence forthcoming from Jacqui Smith. Lord West had a wobble over whether it was a good idea. Now, more experts express their opinion:

1. Sir Ken MacDonald:

The director of public prosecutions has told MPs he will not be pressing the government for the current 28 day limit for holding suspects to be extended.

Sir Ken MacDonald said prosecutors had “managed comfortably” with 28 day detention and extending it would be based on “hypothetical” evidence. […]

“Our experience has been that 28 days has suited us quite nicely.”

He said it was up to MPs whether they extended detention beyond 28 days but it would be based on “hypothetical” cases.

“We have had very, very complex cases since this law was enacted and in only three have we had to go beyond the 14 days.

“Of course, evidence is increasingly complex and that’s why we have gone up to 28 days, which is by the far the greatest period in the common law world.”

2. Lord Goldsmith:

Former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, giving evidence to the same committee, said he was “not persuaded” of the need to extend detention beyond 28 days.

And he said he would have resigned had Tony Blair’s government succeeded with their attempts at 90 day detention.

He told MPs Mr Blair was “aware of my concerns” but he had not wanted to put the then PM “over a barrel”.

Lord Goldsmith, who quit as attorney general when Gordon Brown took over as prime minister, said: “If the 90 day proposal had come from the Commons unamended, I would not have found it possible to vote for it.”

He said his view was based on the evidence he had seen when he was in government and he accepted the situation could have changed.

“I didn’t see any evidence during my time to indicate that longer than 28 days was necessary,” he told MPs.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Goodbye to pre-charge detention extention!”

  1. IanP Says:

    Again we have the debate, 28 days, 54 days, 90 days really doesnt matter.

    What really does matter, and the question that no-one is asking is WHY?

    Why are these politicians willing to put their reputations on the line, not once but over and over again to get this long period of detention.

    What is driving this need that no other country in the free world has even thought about, but our government seem to think that it is so important that it is eating up masses of parliamentary time and money.

    Why, why, why?

    There is something very sinister about this. You have to keep asking why.

  2. charliemarks Says:

    The most mainstream (as in media) answer would be that they are worried about getting it in the neck if there’s a terror attack by someone who the police had to release – an unlikely situation, I think, because if the police were forced to let go someone they *really* thought was a danger, they’d be watching them very closely.

    Given that so many MPs seem to have no capacity for independent thought, it’s easy to see how they’d fall for this line of reasoning. It’s quite common amongst journalists, too – I recall that during the 90 day farce, Tony Parsons was on This Week saying he could see no reason why the police would distort or exaggerate the case…

    Obviously, it’s good for the capitalist class to have draconian legislation on the books – brought in on the grounds of terrorism, etc – for when the class struggle heats up.

  3. a very public sociologist Says:

    No doubt it will be taken by Mad Mel as evidence that leftists and Marxists have got their mitts on the state security apparatus.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: