Tom Griffin (London, OK): With the House of Lords set to vote on 42 day detention later this month, the Council of Europe has today raised a number of concerns about how terror suspects are being held under the existing 28-day regime.
A new report by the Council's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT) warned:
The existing - and a fortiori possible new - provisions regarding the permissible length of pre-charge detention in cases falling under the terrorism legislation are a matter of considerable concern to the CPT. The Committee has no intention of entering into the current debate on the arguments for and against the length of pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects in the United Kingdom. However, as the CPT has emphasised in the past, in the interests of the prevention of ill-treatment, the sooner a criminal suspect passes into the hands of a custodial authority which is functionally and institutionally separate from the police, the better. Consequently, the Committee must insist that neither the existing nor any new provisions in this area should result in criminal suspects spending a prolonged period of time in police custody.
The Committee adds that "information gathered at Paddington Green High Security Police Station indicates that the exceptions have become very much the rule" with many prisoners choosing to remain in police custody in order to retain access to a lawyer.
In these circumstances, the committee emphasises the importance of bringing prisoners before a judge at regular intervals.
The delegation which carried out the December 2007 visit observed that persons detained under the terrorism legislation are still not physically brought before the judge responsible for deciding either the question of the possible extension of pre-charge detention beyond 48 hours or that of further extensions. Instead, the hearings are held via a video conferencing link, set up in the lobby of the secure custody suite of Paddington Green High Security Police Station. In addition to the detained person, officers of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Metropolitan Police, representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service and, in principle, the detainees’ lawyer, are present in the makeshift hearing area. Such an arrangement is simply not adequate from the standpoint of the prevention of ill-treatment.
In its response to the report, the Government rejects any suggestion this needs to change:
We do not accept that it is necessary for a detained person to always be brought within the direct physical presence of a judge. We believe it is possible for judges to consider whether to authorise continued detention through hearings conducted by video link. The decision to undertake a hearing by way of a video-link is made by a district judge who has a right to have the detained person brought before him. Before directing that the hearing be conducted by video link, the judge must allow the detainee, or those acting on his behalf, to make representations for a physical appearance. Should there be any concern over treatment of any particular detainee, it is extremely unlikely that the judge would refuse such representations. The use of video link is cost-effective and expeditious and the Government is not persuaded of the need for a detained person’s automatic physical appearance before a judge. If physical appearance before the judge was automatic in each case, that would significantly slow down investigations and require additional resources.
The fact that a detainee has to make a proactive request to appear before a judge is surely a significant dilution of the legal safeguards, and one which the Lords will want to take ino account when they come to consider the case for an extension of detention without charge later this month.
PS. I should also note that the Council's Parliamentary Commitee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has serious doubts about the compatibility of the Counter-Terrorism Bill with European law.
