This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/6899363.stm

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Police urging terror limit review Police defend longer terror limit
(about 14 hours later)
Senior police officers have renewed their call for a change in the law on how long a terror suspect can be held without charge. Senior police officers say their calls to be allowed to hold terror suspects for longer without charge would not mean any kind of "internment".
Ken Jones, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said some suspects should be held "for as long as it takes" to finish an investigation. "We are not arguing for some kind of Guantanamo nonsense for the UK," said Ken Jones, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).
Shami Chakrabarti, of campaign group Liberty, said it was not Mr Jones's job to launch political campaigns. Mr Jones said the police needed more flexibility over the current limit of 28 days without charge.
Currently, terror suspects can be held for up to 28 days without charge. Shami Chakrabarti, of campaign group Liberty, attacked the police proposal.
"We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment," said Ms Chakrabarti, director of Liberty.
'Against the buffers''Against the buffers'
The head of the senior police officers' organisation had warned in a newspaper interview that terror investigations were "up against the buffers on the 28-day limit" - and that suspects should be held for "as long as it takes".
Since the 28-day limit was introduced neither the police or security services have produced one shred of evidence to demonstrate the need for extension David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary
But facing criticism over such an open-ended form of detention, Mr Jones sought to clarify what flexibility the police needed in such cases. "We do not want internment. That would be crazy."
"It needs to be as long as is proportionate and necessary, subjected to sufficient judicial checks and balances," Mr Jones told the BBC. "But I can tell you now, Acpo is not calling for indeterminate detention."
The Metropolitan Police distanced themselves from any calls for indefinite detention. "Any such proposal would not have the support of the Metropolitan Police service."
And extending the detention period without trial was rejected by the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis.
"All the evidence shows that when the police tried to claim the need for 90-day detention without charge they were wrong and Parliament's decision on 28 days was right," said Mr Davis.
"Since the 28-day limit was introduced neither the police or security services have produced one shred of evidence to demonstrate the need for extension, either in public or in confidential briefings," said Mr Davis.
Liberal Democrat MP, Evan Harris, also condemned the calls for such an extension.
"The police have not provided evidence from their experience of recent investigations that the current 28-day limit - already one of the longest for a democracy - is not sufficient to collect evidence to bring charges," said Dr Harris.
The government has tried to raise the limit a suspect can be held without charge to 90 days.The government has tried to raise the limit a suspect can be held without charge to 90 days.
But MPs have consistently rejected that proposal - handing former Prime Minister Tony Blair his first defeat in the Commons, in 2005.But MPs have consistently rejected that proposal - handing former Prime Minister Tony Blair his first defeat in the Commons, in 2005.
"We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit," Mr Jones told the Observer newspaper.
He said he recognised people would be "concerned and nervous", but said removing the upper limit on detention would entail "sufficient judicial checks and balances".
We expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment Shami ChakrabartiLiberty
In a statement issued later, Mr Jones said investigators were facing an unprecedented international dimension in terrorism cases, and often inquiries took longer than the timescales permitted by law.
"There is no benefit to the police in keeping any individual in custody for a single day longer than is required to investigate criminal, or terrorist activity," he said.
"But any period of proportionate, pre-charge detention must be sufficient to exhaust all enquiries in what are increasingly complex investigations," he continued.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: "We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment."
The Terrorism Act 2006 raised the limit a suspect can be held from 14 days to 28 days - although the 28-day measure has to be renewed by MPs every 12 months.
The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have given their support to the 28-day limit, but both parties say they would prefer a return to a 14-day limit.
The Tories have raised concerns that holding people for long periods before they were charged fuelled media speculation and was risking prejudicing future trials.
The Lib Dems are in favour of allowing phone-tap evidence in court, which they say would help reduce the amount of time police need to make their case.