Judges

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. 

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In order to get the the Counter-terrorism Bill through the Commons in June, the Government promised a parliamentary vote if it was necessary to extend the detention of terror suspects temporarily for up to 42 days.

That proposal has been systematically taken apart today in a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee which warns that Parliament is 'institutionally ill-equipped' for the role which is being thrust upon it.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya ): Doubtless some, perhaps many, will be disappointed by the unanimous decision of five law lords to overturn the judgement delivered, and probably crafted, by Lord Justice Moses in the Serious Fraud Office’s BAE case. And those disappointed will include some who have convinced themselves that the Blair government acted cravenly to protect the commercial interests of BAE - a large employer and taxpayer - or even that this all fitted in with a longer term plan by Blair himself to grease his passage, post-premiership, to a position from which he could enjoy the trappings of international office and advance the interests of his friends in the United States in the maintenance of oil supplies from the Middle East.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I love disagreeing with Iain Dale because he is usually onto something important and isn't frightened of his instincts, unlike most British politicians. He has just blogged the SFO/BAE case and criticised his own leader for supporting the government. But I think he has missed a trick here - along with the whole British media except, it seems, for The Sun and OurKingdom. There, I never thought I'd say that! Except that we two august organs agree from completely different points of view.

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General as was, has been putting himself about lately. In between pulling in £1 million a year from Debevoise & Plimpton, he has been telling Parliament and the media that he would have resigned over Tony Blair's plan to extend the period for which terrorism suspects could be held in custody without charge for up to 90 days. Given his record over the legality, or otherwise, of Britain's part in the invasion of Iraq, there have been smidgeons of doubt over his claim that he would have stood up to be counted. I am not sure that this is entirely fair; at the very least, it could be said that every worm has a turning point.

John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): The Hunting Act, a controversial statute dealing with a controversial topic and imposed by the House of Commons in a controversial way, continues to generate important constitutional questions as it is challenged in the courts. These now include the role of judges, the legality of parliamentary sovereignty as it currently exists and the future of our constitution itself.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): BREAKING NEWS The post below by John Jackson could hardly have been more timely. It has just been announced that the application to the high court for judicial review of the decision not to proceed with investigation of the BAE-Saudi arms deal has succeeded. This is a decision of immense constitutional importance and in particular puts the spotlight on the nature of the position of the Attorney General as a political appointee. Don't forget, it was the Attorney General who closed down the investigation under pressure from then Prime Minister Tony Blair. For a start this is going to heighten the conflict between the judiciary and the executive, in plain speak between the judges and the government, and raise the question 'who is the guardian of the rule of law?'.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The headline on the front page of today’s Telegraph is “Cameron: Scrap the Human Rights Act”. It is not yet clear that the Tory leader has made this commitment. It is clear that the Telegraph wants him to do so. However, its leading editorial quietly explains why it would not make any difference. And so, it concludes, “Parliament would have to find another way to restore what most British people regard as natural justice”.

John Jackson (London, Charter88): I sympathise with the views of John Denham reported by Anthony Barnett.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Just attended the fourth and last of the Smith Institute seminars on ‘Towards a new constitutional settlement’. Vernon Bogdanor and Francesca Klug spoke and the newly returned to government John Denham MP; Dominic Grieve the Conservative shadow Attorney General; and Simon Hughes from the Lib-Dems responded. It was chaired by Jon Snow of Channel 4 News who amused everyone by his bemusement with the rate of change over the last two months. After the first seminar I breached the Chatham House rules by publicising in OK that Jack Straw said he had changed his mind on a written constitution. This time Dominic Grieve was the only person to say he opposed a written constitution. For everyone else it was a matter of either why not, or perhaps but not yet, or intellectually of course but is it feasible, to stop all the excuses about needing to wait (Simon Hughes). Jon Snow asked John Denham in what way he had changed his mind, and his answer was striking. He said he used to be against a written constitution because it would take power away from politicians and give it to judges, now he was favouring one because it would take power away from judges and give it back to politicians! At the end, Bogdanor asked what is the problem to which far-reaching reform is the answer. His reply to his question was, I paraphrase: people now want a direct influence in decisions that impact on them. We will be opening an OK section of the new openDemocracy website soon where full articles can be published, and I hope we will be able to run both Bogdanor's paper and Francesca Klug's who spoke very powerfully about why Britain may now get a new Bill of Rights and Duties.