Jon Bright (London, OK): Anthony's post below captures, I think, a still vague but building current mood on civil liberties. Henry Porter has been saying it for ages, but everyone else is now starting to catch on - something is under attack here, and something needs to be done to resist. Amnesty International have stuck their not inconsiderable oar in today with the release of "Ten good reasons why extending pre-charge detention is a bad idea". They have a rather Ronseal approach to titles, and I can think of a few good reasons why we shouldn't be using "pre-charge" to describe this type of detention (I'd prefer the more innocence presuming "without charge") but in general they are spot on. Two of the ones that made me think are:
5. UNDERMINES presumption of innocence -Two months in prison is roughly equivalent to the length of time someone might serve in prison for assault. Lengthy pre-charge detention would impose what is in effect a 'sentence' of two months on somebody who may never be charged with any crime.
I hadn't considered it like this before but it's exactly right. Two months detention is a punishment.
10. SAFEGUARDS discussed are insufficient - the kind of judicial oversight proposed is in no way the same as charging someone and giving them the chance to defend themselves in a fair trial.
As Anthony has already posted, "without charge" detention is about covering backsides - making sure that there won't be any politically damaging cases where suspects were known to the police but weren't detained. The logic of the judicial oversight proposed will therefore load all the risk onto the judge overseeing the case: they will be in a situation where the police are telling them 'if you let this person go they may blow something up, and that will be your fault'. In that situation, what pragmatic, sensible person would take the very personal risk of releasing them, when the other option (continued detention) carries no risk to themselves whatsoever?
