Following the parliamentary debate on the detention of prisoners, an interesting point arose.
It is possible under current guidelines to re-interview a suspect after they have been charged in certain circumstances "to prevent or minimise harm or loss to some other person, or the public". This then throws out the supposed need for the extended detention, however the Home Secretary made this response: "The hypothesis that we are discussing is that, in a number of cases, there is no possibility of charging on a short-term basis." So we are left in the situation that the police do not have enough evidence to charge a suspect of a single crime, yet wish to detain them for 90 days, the "just in case" scenario.
After the vote the Prime Minister was interviewed and he made a point that in the past police were able to follow a suspect and intervene at a late stage, when evidence had been gathered, but now the police are not able to do this. The only reason put forward for this change is that we are dealing with suicide bombers. Now in my view that only makes a difference after the terrorist act, so was the Prime Minister suggesting that the late stage used previously was after a terrorist act?
Finally, a point was repeatedly made that as the police recommended this legislation then we must accept it. However as all school teachers would say, "if they told you to jump off a cliff, would you?", no, you take the police's advice if you think it reasonable. You must apply judgment to any request, if the Prime Minister is not willing to do this then he has abandoned his post and left the police in charge. If on the other hand he has applied his judgment to it then he cannot claim others must accept the legislation just because it recommended by the police.
4 comments :
Agree very much with the last paragraph, but am not sure I understand the penultimate para. Explain again please.
In the course of the interview the Prime Minister made a comment that left me a little baffled. He seemed to be referring to the police tactic of surveillance, where a suspect is observed and information gathered, then an arrest is made only if there is an immediate threat. The idea is the more we know, about who is involved and to what extent, the better prepared we are. The Prime Minister believes that because we are dealing with suicide bombers we must drag them in at the earliest opportunity. He did not clarify or expand on this, as usual he expects his argument to be carried on the emotional weight of the atrocities we are trying to prevent. Having heard this comment I was trying to understand why we cannot gather information through surveillance as we did before, the only conclusion I have been able to draw is that previously errors were made and the terrorists were able to complete their acts before the police intervened, and because of the increased intent to kill of suicide bombers this method is not worth risking in the new scenario. So my point was, did we have terrorists under surveillance who were allowed to carry out their acts?
I see. Yes the govt. seems to arguing that since it is obvious you cannot walk up to and arrest a suicide bomber that is ARMED, you cannot walk up to him an arrest him before he is armed, when you have enough evidence, which of course is nonsense.
I wonder if any of this is related to the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes. The police are suggesting that waiting will lead to problems for them, so instead they should arrest as soon as a suspect is idenified. It all makes me think the police are confused by the threat they are facing, all the more reason not to alienate people in my view.
Post a Comment