Jacqui Smith seems to have persuaded some Labour MPs at the meeting of backbenchers last night – though to be honest, listening to some of the converts I wonder whether they had understood the legislation before now. Nick Robinson now seems to think the government may just about get their way on this (he said that on the news last night): though I wouldn’t count on that yet.
As readers will know, I’m no supporter of 42 days; but one intervention I feel bound to comment on is that of the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg, who has written or is about to write to Gordon Brown suggesting the 42 day proposal would put the UK out of line in Europe and might breach the European Convention on human rights.
What utter, utter tosh! I’m afraid this is a return to the dodgy factoids I’ve mentioned before that are occasionally wheeled out in this debate and that just cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged, even if they suit your side of the argument. To compare the British system with that of, say, France, simply on the basis of when something that can be called a “charge” is made is just misleading. The kind of charge which, in France, justifies very long detention, is based on a lower level of evidence than that applicable in England.
I’m glad to say that Lord Carlile firmly criticised Hammarberg on The World At One yesterday, making the same points I have. In fact, his was the best defence of 42 days I’ve yet heard: he said that ideally he’d get rid of the threshold test for charging at 28 days precisely because he thinks it allows easier charging than is required under the traditional approach; and that he’d rather permit longer pre-charge detention so long as the higher charging standard is maintained.
It has something to be said for it, this. However, the threshold test isn’t going away, and like the DPP, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Falconer, I see it as perhaps the key reason why 42 days isn’t needed.
From a libertarian vuiw, 42 days is the least offensive part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill.
Part 6 of the Bill will give Ministers the right to direct that an inquest be held without a jury and that it be held by a specially appointed Coroner. Now that is surely a recipe for challenge under the European Human Rights Convention?
Then, what about the questioning after charge provisions? I am surprised that these seem to be almost going through on the nod.
As for the 42 days, we should have it and no need for votes in Parliament to trigger it. The compromise is just a mess. After all, judicial safeguards would remain in place for individuals who are detained.