David Davis' Resignation and fight over civil liberty

[Peter Fairbrother]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <48531E65.7080504@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
> <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
>> Being held in custody 

for a known reason

and being held for interrogation are not at all
>> the same thing.
> 
> I'm still no clearer why the people in favour of the 42 days proposal 
> prefer suspects to be interrogated without charge, rather than holding 
> them in custody for one charge while continuing to interrogate them for 
> others.

Several reasons - first, the Police etc don't like the idea because the 
lesser charge might not be enough to hold the suspect in custody, the 
Magistrate might let him go , and in many cases the suspect will not 
have committed any lesser offense worth holding him in custody on.

Second, the Police don't like the idea because after charge the suspect 
can refuse to even see the Police on that or related matters, and if he 
is in custody the Prison service will not let the Police visit without 
the suspect's permission (though he can be forcibly interviewed on 
different matters _which have come up afterwards_ with the help of a 
Court order (I think - Nicholas?)).

That might sound silly, but actually it's the fundamental mechanism of 
the limited pre-trial detention protection from excessive Police 
harassment and over-interrogation.

BTW1, the Police etc are not generally in favour of 42 days, but the 
people in favour have heard this.



Third, the Courts don't like it, for two main reasons - the Police have 
had their go at the suspect, and a part of the Court's duty is to 
protect the public from excessive harassment by the Police; and also 
because many wrong convictions have been obtained by over-long 
interrogations.

There are more reasons, but that's the basics.




I don't know what the people in favour of 42 days think, but the very 
idea that any unconvicted person can be detained at all obviously 
impinges on their civil liberties - the normal 48-hour or whatever is 
supposed to be enough, assuming the person is or may be innocent.

If there is enough evidence to strongly suggest that the suspect may 
have committed a specific++ crime then a longer period of detention may 
be appropriate until trial in order to ensure that the suspect does not 
escape - though I have some doubts about that rationale - or commit 
further crimes.

++ evidence of unspecific crimes is generally, well ... unspecific, like 
unspecific evidence of a specific crime, and we don't (usually) lock 
people up for that, we need specific evidence of a specific crime.



Are the rules appropriate in every case? - No, in the field of human 
behaviour no set of rules can ever be appropriate in every case. But the 
only way to protect the public is to have strict rules controlling the 
powers of the Police etc.

It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict a guilty man, 
as that way the system is seen as just - if ten innocent men are 
convicted to get an innocent man then it's very unjust.




BTW2, while I'm unsure about the tactics, strategy and rationale of Mr 
Davis's resignation, the very fact that the Labour party seem unwilling 
to contest the issue speaks HUGE volumes ...


-- Peter Fairbrother