Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree. Although I am sure that there are different ways of approaching this—and I am always conscious when proposing an Opposition amendment that it will often be easy to find flaws in it as it would have been drafted without having all the benefits provided by civil servants—I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to amendment No. 16 because it seems to me to set out a perfectly sensible and rational way of proceeding. It says:"““A police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may make an application to a judge of the Crown Court…A judge may grant permission…if satisfied by evidence that:""(a) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the original charge was appropriate to bring; and""(b) it is in the interests of justice to allow further questioning in the circumstances””" and:"““Where a judge grants permission for further questioning…he shall make such directions as he considers appropriate with regard to:""(a) the maximum permitted period…""(b) the total length of time over which further questioning is permitted; or""(c) any other directions as required in the interests of justice.””" Furthermore, we use the expression that I picked up with the Minister: a ““related terrorism offence””, which"““means a terrorism offence arising in whole or in part from the same set of facts as the offence with which the person has already been charged, or officially informed that they may be prosecuted.””" That is included because I have always had the slight anxiety, which the Government do not appear to share, that there may be a successful challenge to the notion that just because a person is charged with a particular offence, we can automatically go and charge them with another. My gut instinct is that that might be wrong because, in practising criminal law, I have been of the impression that if the matter arises entirely from the same facts, at present there may be objection, although I am conscious that the Minister has been advised—by his civil servants, I think—that that is not the case. To help the Government and because I would much rather that this situation did not arise, we have used the expression a ““related terrorism offence””, which I hope effectively covers that point.