By KUNA,
London : Controversial plans to extend terror detention in the UK to 42 days could undermine the independence of judges and lead to the collapse of trials, a cross-party committee of peers warned Tuesday.
The committee said the proposed procedures, giving both the House of Commons and House of Lords a vote on whether to allow an extension in the pre-charge time limit beyond 28 days, were “muddled” and “ill-advised.” The House of Lords Constitution Committee said the power, contained in the Counter-Terrorism Bill “arguably risks undermining the rights of fair trial for the individuals concerned.” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown faced the stiffest test of his parliamentary authority in a key vote when the Bill was debated by MPs.
His majority was slashed to just nine following a backbench rebellion and he was effectively forced to rely on the votes of the Democratic Unionist Party, in Ulster, to get the measure through the House of Commons.
The Bill will face stiff opposition in the House of Lords when Parliament returns from the summer recess, and today’s report will give further ammunition to critics of the proposals, commentators said.
Under the legislation, MPs and Peers would vote on whether to grant a temporary “reserve power” for the Home Secretary, allowing courts to authorise detention for up to 42 days if there was an operational need.
Although the reserve power order would not be specifically about an individual case, politicians would “have to tread a tightrope” to avoid prejudicing any trial, the peers said.
Their report said “We are unconvinced that the Government have properly thought through this aspect of their proposed scheme.” The committee also said it was concerned that a judge could have to decide whether to extend a suspect’s detention within hours of a “highly politically charged debate” in Parliament.
The committee’s report said “There is a risk that this will be perceived to undermine the independence of the judiciary.” The British Government’s desire to increase democratic accountability was understandable, but risked “conflating the roles of Parliament and the judiciary, which would be quite inappropriate.” The peers added that far from being a system of checks and balances, this is a recipe for confusion that places on Parliament tasks that it cannot effectively fulfil and arguably risks undemining the rights of fair trial for the individuals concerned.
Meanwhile, Miss Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights charity “Liberty,” said “This report by a committee including two former Attorney Generals and a Lord Chief Justice (the most senior judge) makes devastating holiday reading for ministers.” “In an attempt to sugar coat the 42-day detention plan their Bill would have politicians voting on individual cases, its constitutionally illiterate and proof that desperate politics makes bad law,” she added.