moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert ““for no more than three hours””
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment that was brought to our attention by Liberty. It would prevent people being detained for more than three hours pending a decision by the CPS on whether to charge.
On Report in the Commons, the Government added Clause 9. It expressly allows the police to detain a suspect pending a decision by the CPS on the appropriate charge. The only time limit that would apply to the power is the normal time limit for detention pre-charge, designed to enable the police to detain a suspect to secure or preserve evidence relating to the offence for which he was arrested, or to obtain such evidence by questioning.
These purposes are not appropriate after a custody officer has decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person and has referred the case to the CPS for this purpose. The evidence relating to the offence would already have been secured and the witness already interviewed. The only purpose for detention in this context is to ensure that the person who would be detained post-charge does not need to be released while the CPS is making a charging decision.
We agree that it is sensible to clarify that a person can be detained for these purposes. We would not wish to see those suspected of serious offences released pending a decision by the CPS because of a possible loophole in the law. However, a time limit is needed so that this power is not used to keep people in custody for longer than necessary. It is also needed to ensure that a person is not kept in detention because of the failure of the CPS to make a charging decision as soon as possible. Three hours may not seem a very long time but, in the Commons, the Minister suggested that the power should not be used when the officer thought that the CPS would take more than three hours to reach a decision. Referring a case to the CPS will frequently involve little more than a telephone call to the duty prosecutor or the out-of-hours duty prosecutor service, which is designed to ensure a 24-hour service.
There is understandable concern that the police should not be required to release someone who they consider to be a danger simply because the CPS has failed to provide a charging decision within three hours. To deal with that, there is already an emergency power for a custody officer to charge a person in cases that would normally be determined by the CPS. That applies where the officer is unable to consult the CPS, a time limit is about to expire, and if the suspect were not charged it would require his release in circumstances where that would not be appropriate. If the specified time limit elapses, a person can also be released on conditional pre-charge bail.
The need for this safeguard was accepted by the Minister in the Commons, Liam Byrne MP. He also acknowledged that the power should not be used if a decision were expected to take more than three hours. However, he suggested that the safeguard should be included in guidance rather than in the Bill. When something as fundamental as individual liberty is at stake, it is unsatisfactory to leave safeguards to non-statutory guidance. As in the case of conditional pre-charge and street bail, strict time limits must be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dholakia
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 July 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c195-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:20:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334496
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334496
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334496