Holding people

[robinbloke]

So some Brits were held in Iran for 13 days and the foreign office has been trying to get them released after they (probably unknowingly) wandered onto a disputed island.
They've just been released after thirteen days. Well, frankly I think they're lucky - if they'd have been arrested here they could have another fifteen days of being locked up before even being charged.
Another seventy seven if Blair had got his way.

Comments

[whiskeylover.livejournal.com]

I am incredibly pleased that the proposed law did not get through- even the 28 days is pushing it.

I can quite happily accept that some further evidence may need to be obtained before a successful prosecution can be brought, but that does not mean that the suspect cannot be charged.

What is unacceptable is to have people held in custody, without even being told why they are being held, and where they can be held for 3 months without justifiable reason.

The argument that it needs to be justified to a judge does not really wash- judges interpret the law, rather than make it, so if the law allowed up to 90 days, the judge would only need to be satisfied that the police had some reasonable grounds for holding the suspect further.


The problem with permitting draconian measures such as these, is that they undermine the rule of law, and open the way to abuse of that power. Sure, the Dear Leader has said that it wouldn't be abused, and who am I to cast doubt on the truthfulness of that paragon of virtue, but is it really sufficient to base the ability to detain suspects for months without charge on a "Trust me" comment from a professional politician?

Effectively, it would see a Britain that is not that dissimilar from other dictatorships, where government critics and other undesireable can be confined to prisons for lengthy periods of time, without recourse to due process. If so, how are we morally superior to those governments? (which Britain is always quick to criticise, of course)