Shadow Home Secretary David Davis told journalists today that anticipated future terror emergencies do not warrant new laws to extend pre-charge detention.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis told journalists today that anticipated future terror emergencies do not warrant new laws to extend pre-charge detention. Instead, emergency powers in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA) already allow for a targeted and temporary extension of pre-charge detention periods for suspects in a terror emergency, subject to Parliamentary and judicial oversight.
His view was supported by Liberty’s legal analysis that emergency measures found in the CCA could be triggered by a genuine emergency or “nightmare scenario” in which police are unable to cope with multiple terror plots. The Government could then create temporary emergency powers if war or terrorism posed a serious risk to UK security or threatened human welfare or the environment. Parliament would be required to pass a resolution approving the regulations within seven days of their introduction.
Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:
“These chilling emergency powers must only be used as a safety valve of last resort in a ‘nightmare’ terror crisis when the police are overwhelmed. The Government already has the power to extend pre-charge detention in this scenario which makes the call for new laws redundant. Politicians must learn to consider the umpteen laws they have already created before taking Britain into a permanent state of emergency and internment.”
In 2003 Liberty worked vigorously to restrict some of the broad powers in the-then Civil Contingencies Bill and remains concerned about some measures in the Act. However, Liberty believes that the Government must consider this legislation before dramatically altering the normal law of the land. New temporary powers created under the CCA must be proportionate and urgently needed and should be compatible with the Human Rights Act.
Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
Background Briefing
THE CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT 2004 AND PRE-CHARGE DETENTION IN THE EVENT OF A TERRORISM EMERGENCY
Proponents of extended pre-charge detention often base their arguments on a future emergency scenario involving multiple grave terror plots. These come to notice and/or fruition so suddenly and simultaneously that the police are simply unable to gather the evidence required to charge such a large number of suspects within the 28 day time limit.
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (“CCA”) was passed to provide for emergency scenarios such as the one described. It is itself a broad, controversial and potentially dangerous measure. However, its powers to make emergency regulations are at least limited to a genuinely emergency response of a temporary nature, subject to both parliamentary and judicial control.
How it works
The CCA allows the Government to make emergency powers with immediate effect if a series of criteria are satisfied:
First, an ‘emergency’ must have occurred, be occurring or be about to occur. The definition contained in section 19 covers war or terrorism threatening the UK’s security and other events or situations that threaten serious damage to human welfare or the environment in the UK (or parts of it). The definition covers events in the UK and allow for powers to be passed if the threat has not yet caused any damage.
Even when satisfied of this, there are several further requirements set out in Sections 20 and 21:
- The regulations must not be excessive in that they must be appropriately targeted to the emergency in question and must be ‘proportionate’.
- The Minister must believe that it is necessary to use the power to prevent, control or mitigate the emergency. In particular, existing laws must either be insufficient or would cause delay.
- There is a requirement that the powers are compatible with the rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.
- The Minister must be satisfied that there is an urgent need to create the powers.
The scope of possible powers is covered in Section 22. They allow the requisition or confiscation or destruction of property, the prohibition or required movement of people, the prevention of assemblies, the prevention of travel and amending acts of Parliament and would cover longer periods of pre-charge detention. There are some limitations on the scope of powers contained in section 23 in that they must not be excessive, they cannot amend the act itself (or the Human Rights Act 1998), and they can’t alter criminal proceedings.
Powers can last no longer than 30 days although they can be renewed at any time. Parliament must be given the opportunity to consider the powers as soon as possible. The powers cannot last more than seven days unless both Houses of Parliament vote in favour of them within that period.
Powers can be challenged in the High Court through the normal court process. As the powers will be made by secondary legislation they can be struck down by the courts. This differs from an Act of Parliament where courts are only able to make a declaration that they are incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
Source; Liberty
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/alternative-to-pre-charge-detention.shtml
His view was supported by Liberty’s legal analysis that emergency measures found in the CCA could be triggered by a genuine emergency or “nightmare scenario” in which police are unable to cope with multiple terror plots. The Government could then create temporary emergency powers if war or terrorism posed a serious risk to UK security or threatened human welfare or the environment. Parliament would be required to pass a resolution approving the regulations within seven days of their introduction.
Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:
“These chilling emergency powers must only be used as a safety valve of last resort in a ‘nightmare’ terror crisis when the police are overwhelmed. The Government already has the power to extend pre-charge detention in this scenario which makes the call for new laws redundant. Politicians must learn to consider the umpteen laws they have already created before taking Britain into a permanent state of emergency and internment.”
In 2003 Liberty worked vigorously to restrict some of the broad powers in the-then Civil Contingencies Bill and remains concerned about some measures in the Act. However, Liberty believes that the Government must consider this legislation before dramatically altering the normal law of the land. New temporary powers created under the CCA must be proportionate and urgently needed and should be compatible with the Human Rights Act.
Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
Background Briefing
THE CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT 2004 AND PRE-CHARGE DETENTION IN THE EVENT OF A TERRORISM EMERGENCY
Proponents of extended pre-charge detention often base their arguments on a future emergency scenario involving multiple grave terror plots. These come to notice and/or fruition so suddenly and simultaneously that the police are simply unable to gather the evidence required to charge such a large number of suspects within the 28 day time limit.
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (“CCA”) was passed to provide for emergency scenarios such as the one described. It is itself a broad, controversial and potentially dangerous measure. However, its powers to make emergency regulations are at least limited to a genuinely emergency response of a temporary nature, subject to both parliamentary and judicial control.
How it works
The CCA allows the Government to make emergency powers with immediate effect if a series of criteria are satisfied:
First, an ‘emergency’ must have occurred, be occurring or be about to occur. The definition contained in section 19 covers war or terrorism threatening the UK’s security and other events or situations that threaten serious damage to human welfare or the environment in the UK (or parts of it). The definition covers events in the UK and allow for powers to be passed if the threat has not yet caused any damage.
Even when satisfied of this, there are several further requirements set out in Sections 20 and 21:
- The regulations must not be excessive in that they must be appropriately targeted to the emergency in question and must be ‘proportionate’.
- The Minister must believe that it is necessary to use the power to prevent, control or mitigate the emergency. In particular, existing laws must either be insufficient or would cause delay.
- There is a requirement that the powers are compatible with the rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.
- The Minister must be satisfied that there is an urgent need to create the powers.
The scope of possible powers is covered in Section 22. They allow the requisition or confiscation or destruction of property, the prohibition or required movement of people, the prevention of assemblies, the prevention of travel and amending acts of Parliament and would cover longer periods of pre-charge detention. There are some limitations on the scope of powers contained in section 23 in that they must not be excessive, they cannot amend the act itself (or the Human Rights Act 1998), and they can’t alter criminal proceedings.
Powers can last no longer than 30 days although they can be renewed at any time. Parliament must be given the opportunity to consider the powers as soon as possible. The powers cannot last more than seven days unless both Houses of Parliament vote in favour of them within that period.
Powers can be challenged in the High Court through the normal court process. As the powers will be made by secondary legislation they can be struck down by the courts. This differs from an Act of Parliament where courts are only able to make a declaration that they are incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
Source; Liberty
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/1-press-releases/2007/alternative-to-pre-charge-detention.shtml 
Comments
Display the following 2 comments