Skip to main content

Divisions 84 and 85 - Detention without charge

Division 85 (also the link) is the division for inserting 28 days.
Division 84 is the division for not inserting 90 days (see ante for reasoning).

The Birmingham Mail editorial last night made the key point that Tony Blair had not won the argument.

The underlying issue is complex and as often tends to happen the key legal issues got completely lost. After arrest there are two processes charging a suspect and then remanding in custody. Any constraints on reinterview exist only in the PACE* code and not in primary or secondary legislation.

It, therefore, rests entirely within the control of the executive (the government) to change the guidance to allow terrorist suspects to be charged quickly and remanded into custody. This would get around the difficulties that would be caused by long periods of detention without charge. Let me emphasise that the issue of detention without charge is key. This is not a matter of there not being a trial, but a matter of there being no proper identification of what people are alleged to have done. It is the absence of a charge that makes the government's proposal equivalent to Internment.

My most worrying concern about this was that senior police officers were instructed to lobby MPs. This was not a matter where the police officers were doing what they thought was right, but they were doing what they were told to do. I talk frequently to the West Midlands Police Federation and senior officers and am told what they think about things. I understand, however, that there was lobbying going on via instruction.

Over to an analysis of the divisions:
One tory MP rebelled on the 90 vote and 2 on the 28 vote. 49 Labour MPs rebelled on the 90 amendment and 51 on the 28 amendment. All 62 Lib Dem MPs voted the same way on both amendments. A further 13 Labour MPs abstained on the 28 amendment. George Galloway did turn up this time. The DUP voted with the oppposition and the UU with the government. All SDLP MPs voted with the opposition (from the government benches) all the Nationalists turned up and voted with the opposition.

At the time of writing there is not expected to be a division on the third reading of the bill.

The irony of the whole matter is that next Wednesday there will be a debate about how Tony Blair is being soft on terrorists by allowing people "on the run" to avoid going to court, whilst their victims may have to. He can have it one way or another, but not both ways.


(*PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…