UK Can Now Hold People Without Charge For 42 Days

the_leander writes "Prime Minister Gordon Brown has narrowly won a House of Commons vote on extending the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days. There is talk of compensation packages available for the falsely accused. The chances of you getting that money however are slim to none, lets not forget, this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs."

Jumping the gun a bit....

[Cambo67]

....as the Bill in question has only been passed by the House of Commons. It's got to go before the House of Lords yet. Many commentators think it is not going to do too well there.

House of Lords

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK can't now hold people for 42 days without trial - the Bill still needs to pass the House of Lords to become law

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[thermian]

It's got to go before the House of Lords yet

Ah yes, our fine tradition of having decisions by the people we elect overturned by a bunch of unelected lords.

Nope, nothing wrong with our system at all.

I'm for this 42 day thing myself. Its not as if its a breach of human rights or anything, I mean, we aren't waterboarding them, or locking them away for years without trial....

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[iserlohn]

Um.. the House of Lords have their powers severily curtailed by the Parliament Act and for the most part the Lords is only able to delay legislation. It a part of the UK's unwritten constitution.

Re:Slashdot, as usual, can't wait to bash Britain.

[KostasPlenty]

That is right, for the time being the can only hold you for 28 days http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7449678.stm [bbc.co.uk]. It is not as if the UK has the most cameras and the strictest terrorist laws of all of Europe. Nor is it the country that pressed for the European Human Rights Charter to not be part of the EU constitution. :-P

Re:As opposed to the US ...

[Quadraginta]

They also weren't apprehended on US soil, which is actually the operative difference.

If someone were picked up by the police or FBI in Chicago on a "terror" related charge, then the whole habeas corpus, right to a speedy trial thingy comes into play as usual. The difference with Guantanamo prisoners is they were all picked up on battlefields in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, et cetera. Whole 'nother ball game.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[vidarh]

Except it's not unwritten. All of what's considered part of UK constitutional law is written in the form of acts, treaties and to a very limited extent precedent.

(IANAL, but I'm married to one, and one of the first things they drill into UK law students when dealing with constitutional law is that they better not ever write on an exam that it's unwritten).

Hm. Nice spin on the summary...

[imsabbel]

Sure, the poor sod was billed 12500 for bed and ledging...
But that was only subtracted from the 200k+ he got as compensation.
Which makes this a complete counterexample.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[rpjs]

I do think the Lords will get the 42 days struck from the bill. I don't think they'll back down on this one and accept it, and so the government will have the choice of dropping 42 days or losing the whole bill for a year before being able to resubmit it under the Parliament Act - I think they'll prefer to drop the 42 days.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[u38cg]

Technically, you are correct - but if the Lords is hell bent against something then you can guarantee the government will have a fight on its hands. Enough to make a government rethink its position, sometimes.

it's without CHARGE, not without trial

[Quadraginta]

The bill defines how long you can hold someone without charging him with a crime. That's got nothing to do with how long, after he has been charged, it can take before he is tried.

As I understand it, the current limit is 28 days, so they're just tacking on an extra two weeks, and according to the BBC, they want the right on a "contingency basis" when the crime in question is particularly complicated and time-consuming to unravel, so they can figure out who's who and know whom to charge and whom to let go. An example they give is when there are international complications, e.g. the police need to get info from another country's police, immigration, or security services, which, of course, can take an annoyingly long time, since you have to rely on purely voluntary cooperation (no English judge can compel a French police caption, or a Saudi immigration agency, or the FBI).

In other words, as a general rule, the 28-day limit stays in effect, but in certain unusual circumstances -- e.g. something like the London bombing, evidence that some major operation has taken place, or is about to take place -- then the government can raise the 28-day limit to 42 days temporarily. Even if the limit is raised, a judge needs to sign off on applying it to any particular individual. Parlaiment can step in at any time after the limit is raised and reverse it. And, in any event, the raising expires after 60 days.

I dunno, when you look at the bill in detail, it seems rather, well, moderate. Not quite like the massive Armageddon / burning pile of civil liberties / return of the Gestapo, Inquisition, and the rack that lots of Chicken Littles seem to think it is. *shrug*

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[p0tat03]

Except if you're Canada, where the Senate (our parliamentary equivalent to the House of Lords) is consisted of members appointed by the PM, and therefore highly susceptible to voting with the party. They are also known for rubber-stamping legislation through, and spend a ludicrously small amount of time in session each year.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[iserlohn]

Yes, you are right. Some components of the constitution are act and treaties, which are indeed written. Precendent and conventions are also a part of the constitution and although they are unwritten, are largely observed.

The difference that distinguishes it to written constitutions is that there is no single document that outlines the framework of government. Rather, it is much like the common law itself.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[jeevesbond]

Not to disagree with you, just wanted to point out that this law is not popular [bbc.co.uk] in Britain.

IIRC the Lords can bounce this back (with good reason) to the Commons, by the time this goes back and forth a couple of times the media will be in a good frenzy about it. The fact that Gordon Brown had to do a deal with another political party to get this through is not going down well [bbc.co.uk]:

But there was uproar in the Commons as the result of the key vote on 42 days was announced after five hours of tense debate - with Tory and Lib Dem MPs shouting "You've been bought" at the DUP benches.

They claim the DUP was offered a string of inducements - including extra financial help for Northern Ireland - to guarantee its support.

I for one am hoping this gets pushed back by the Lords.

--- Back to the article ---

this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs.

Got a decent reference? Seriously, that link is to the 'Daily Mail', the sensationalism in that paper is renowned. Even its founder (Lord Northcliffe) said its winning formula is to give readers: 'a daily hate [indopedia.org]'. This is the same paper that pays foreign people to break the law [blogspot.com], so they can report about how East Europeans are 'destroying Britain'.

Re:The Question

[phagstrom]

For the one or two outsiders who reads this, it's ROT-13 and reads:

In Soviet Russia, base 13 encrypts jokes.

Oh wait...am I now in violation with the DMCA?

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[Richard_at_work]

Charles I - executed 1649.
Oliver Cromwell - died in 1658, his regime was overthrown in 1660.
George III - ruled with a majority in the elected Parliament.

Seems the system worked during all those cases.

Needs to pass European Parliment as well as Lords

[SomethingOrOther]

There is also the fact that this is very likely to be in breach of EU human rights act.

Even if this does pass the Lords (unlikely), the European Courts will take interest and may very well overturn it. Remember that the British Courts & Parliment are answerable to Europe.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[actiondan]

I think you misunderstand the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

The House of Lords can send legislation back to the House of Commons for a re-think but ultimately, the Government can force the will of the House of Commons through by invoking the Parliament Act.

All the House of Lords can do is delay things, which means they can prevent bad laws being rushed through without anyone knowing about them but they can't prevent the elected members getting their way in the end.

Re:With two words, I destroy your argument

[meringuoid]

Nothing like Gitmo was ever set up

Really? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hey!

[damburger]

Count the number of people who live in Detroit. Count the number of US soldiers in Iraq. Then go back to your fucking trailer and learn some maths.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[vidarh]

The difference was that the hunting ban didn't see anywhere near the same kind of opposition in the Commons. In this case Gordon Brown had to rely on the DUP, and the only other non-Labour MP to vote for it was Ann Widdecombe, while 36 Labour MP's also voted against it.

If there's enough of an uproar about it, it won't take much before some of those voting for it starts worrying about their re-election and vote against it if it's sent back to the Commons.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[ewrong]

It's a bit of a strange one for me The House of Lords. As a concept it's deeply flawed but for the large part it actually works pretty well.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[jimicus]

I for one am hoping this gets pushed back by the Lords.

How often does this happen that the Lords send a law back to Commons?

(No sarcasm intended, I honestly do not know.)

Rather less than it used to since Tony Blair replaced most of the Lords with hand-picked cronies and then decided he could use a law which dated from the Second World War to overturn the Lords if they disagreed with him.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[Dark$ide]

The bill can't become law before the House of Lords votes on it. It's then sent back to the Commons to change the stuff that the Lords don't like. Only after the bill has passed both houses does it then go to Her Majesty The Queen for Royal Ascent. If the Lords keep rejecting it then the Commons can invoke the Parliament Act [bbc.co.uk] to force it through.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[Richard_at_work]

There are several ways for the Houses of Commons to overrule the Lords - one of which is to bring the matter to a vote under the Parliament Act, which you mention, and another way is for the Government to pass an 'Orders in Chamber' which enacts law with no vote.

Under the first method, the matter still has to go to a vote again, and you are not voting on the same issue as the first time the Commons voted on it - you are now voting with the knowledge that half the Houses of Parliament does not agree with the statute, and that can have the effect of changing the voting of members. The second method has been directly challenged in court, and overturned on many occasions - it is currently under review for downsizing, as the method has been declared unlawful.

Re:Needs to pass European Parliment as well as Lor

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a slight mis-characterisation of how European law works. Since the Human Rights Act was passed the place this laws validity will be tested is the UK courts. Sure if their are arguments about the UK implementation of the HRA it could still go to the European Court but not on the case in question.

And besides the UK can always derogate from Europe on this if they want. They are still a sovereign country.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[Tony Hoyle]

It's got to go back to commons twice (three times?) before that can be used.

He *barely* got it through commons this time, by promising free blowjobs to those that voted with him. You're looking at maybe a couple of years of this, and Brown just won't be there that long. I'd be surprised if he lasts long enough for the first reading in the Lords in November.

Re:With two words, I destroy your argument

[JosKarith]

Okay, let's look at someone from your list:
"Adams was active in Sinn Féin at this time. In August 1971, internment was introduced in Northern Ireland under the Special Powers Act. Adams was interned in March 1972, on HMS Maidstone, but was released in June to take part in secret, but abortive talks in London.[4] The IRA negotiated a short-lived truce with the British and an IRA delegation met with the British Home Secretary, William Whitelaw. The delegation included Sean Mac Stiofain (Chief of Staff), Daithi O'Conaill, Seamus Twomey, Ivor Bell, Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams , and Myles Shevlin, a solicitor. The IRA insisted Adams be included in the meeting and he was released from internment to participate. Following the failure of the talks he played a central role in planning the bomb blitz on Belfast known as Bloody Friday.[4] He was re-arrested in July 1973 and interned at Long Kesh internment camp. After taking part in an IRA-organised escape attempt he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment." Held for a few months on a naval ship, then released to take part in talks. When he didn't get what he wanted from the talks he took part in planning an atrocity that killed 9 and injured over 130 - carefully designed so that people being evacuated from the first few bombs were directly in line for the second wave.
Hardly a shining example of a humanitarian. And 3-4 months in a brig hardly compares to Guantanamo Bay. As he was held on a British Naval vessel he was subject to British law, as opposed to being parcelled onto another nation's soil to avoid the arresting nation's laws...

Beware the shiterags (a bit off-topic)

[lysse]

this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs

Er, even the article states that his £252k compensation was reduced, on audit, by £12.5k to cover the cost of keeping him for three years - and that in itself is a sum that works out at about what his SSP entitlement would have been over the period in which he was imprisoned, which is likely far less than the cost of actually imprisoning him (prisons being hellishly expensive to run). In short - he still walked away with £240k compensation. The implication that he somehow had to write a cheque himself is grossly misleading.

Moreover, the article is from the Daily "Hate" Mail, the newspaper that defines journalistic standards by contradiction; I'd more or less regard anything it prints as false by default, unless corroborated by a reliable source.

Re:Needs to pass European Parliment as well as Lor

[lysse]

No, they're not - at least, not according to British law. As far as I'm aware (from a year and a half of a law degree), not even the ECtHR can force the British government to change the law - they can award damages against governments, and their opinion can have the effect of rendering such a law unenforceable, but that's all. Meanwhile, because of the longstanding doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, the British courts are estopped from examining the procedures of Parliament at all, despite HRA 1998; even if they find a law to be morally wrong, the most they can do directly is issue a "declaration of incompatibility" - which the government can counter by simply having a minister stand up in the Commons and say "No it isn't". (In fact, as all bills are required to be since HRA'98, this bill will have been declared by the government to be compatible with the ECHR; the onus will be on someone whose human rights have been damaged by it to prove that no such compatibility exists.)

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[Archtech]

Not to disagree with you, just wanted to point out that this law is not popular [bbc.co.uk] in Britain.

That turns out not to be the case. You cited a few people responding to an article on the Web. But polls have shown that 69% of UK citizens are actually in favour of 42 days. I think they're wrong about that, but it just goes to show that the masses can usually be panicked simply by telling them they're threatened.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a96QqbTV.fjo&refer=europe [bloomberg.com]

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[Webspit]

actually it's orders in council.

Judges have chambers, monarchs have a privy council

Re:With two words, I destroy your argument

[OceanKiwi]

Sorry Simon, whilst I agree with your sentiment entirely, you have missed a couple of horror stories such as the Guilford 4 and the Birmingham 6 - as well as the policy of internment. The UK doesn't have a clean sheet on this matter either, and Brown is in the process of shitting the bed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_4 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_6 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius [wikipedia.org].

Re:Hm. Nice spin on the summary...

[Qzukk]

would have had to pay the living costs

I don't know how it works in the UK, but I'm going to say that's bullshit. You think my apartment owner is going to say "oh hey, the guy is in jail, he doesn't need to pay me?" Maybe the utilities there go the extra mile and the electric guy comes out and turns off all the lights?

I'm certain the guy still had to pay those living costs.

Re:it's without CHARGE, not without trial

[Candid88]

"You can be jailed for NO REASON, without compensation, for 42 days !"

Um, you must be reading about a different law.
1: A satisfactory reason has to be made to judges and even parliment who all have to agree on a per-case basis.
2: Compensation is payable to anyone wrongfully held.

Breaking news

[Andy_R]

Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP, and will run for re-election on the single issue of fighting the 42 day rule.

Details still emerging, BBC News has some details [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[speculatrix]

the fox hunting bill was a massive smokescreen for the Civil Contingencies Bill [wikipedia.org], now an Act, which took away some fundamental rights. Even now, many people have not heard of it despite it giving the government the right to do anything they damn well please merely by asserting there is some kind of emergency!

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Less with the hyperbole, please. This may well be an unnecessary and draconian measure, and it may well grant far more power to the authorities than they legitimately need, and I dislike it greatly. However, it's still nowhere near as bad as you make out: it was always going to be the case that a suspect being held would have to be brought before a court within (IIRC) 48 hours, and then every seven days as long as they are held.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[digitig]

In the particular case of the Daily Mail, though, I suspect blog posts are more reliable.

Re:Jumping the gun a bit....

[ravenshrike]

Of course, the only reason he got elected in the first place was because the Brits and the French decided that the republic should pay for the sins of the previous govt. and instituted grievous reparations upon them, all the while being warned by the Americans that this was a bad idea. The economy subsequently collapsed under the weight of the reparations, and people began seriously searching for pipe dreams. Along came Hitler, with the pipe dream of revenge and German supremacy. Is it any real surprise people voted for him?