|
|
|
|
|
Clarke calls for rethink on how terrorists are tried Phillip Johnston / London Telegraph | March 22 2006 Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, called yesterday for a wider debate on whether Britain should abandon the centuries-old adversarial system of justice in terrorism cases. In evidence to the Commons home affairs select committee, he questioned whether existing procedures gave the public adequate protection from the threat from potential suicide bombers who might have to be released for lack of evidence. Mr Clarke said he still believed that despite last year's bruising defeat for the Government, the police should have 90 days in which to question suspected terrorist. After a revolt by 50 Labour backbenchers, the plan was abandoned and the Commons instead agreed to increase the time limit from 14 to 28 days. But Mr Clarke said this was insufficient and hinted that he might try to revive support for the longer detention period when counter-terrorism laws are consolidated into one super-Bill, probably next year. He also indicated a continuing view in at least part of the Government that current judicial procedures are not suited to dealing with the terrorist threat. While he emphasised that he was speaking in a personal capacity, the Home Secretary said he would prefer the French inquisitorial system, which allows investigating judges to question suspects before their lawyers are brought in. Two months ago, Tony Blair voiced similar misgivings about the British system in the context of delivering his "respect" agenda. He said the traditional court processes did too much to protect the rights of the accused while proving "utterly useless" in protecting the ordinary citizen on the street. Senior government sources maintain that there are no specific proposals being considered in Whitehall for dismantling the Anglo-Saxon judicial model, even for terrorist cases. But disdain for the current system has been a persistent theme from the Home Office and Downing Street in recent years. An inquisitorial system would not necessarily mean doing away with a jury or defence and prosecution counsel but it would give the judges a far greater role in calling witnesses and evidence. In France, a juge d'instruction, who combines the roles of magistrate and district attorney, investigates the circumstances of a crime and then, after what is usually a lengthy inquiry, produces a dossier setting out the facts and the charges. While this investigation takes place, the chief suspect can be held in prison. In Britain, the suspect can be held for just 14 days - soon to be increased to 28 - and if evidence is insufficient for a charge must be released. Mr Clarke said: ''My personal view is that a supervisory system such as investigatory magistrates is very superior to the system we have in this country. I don't think the adversarial system has been a particularly successful system of securing justice." But while he accepted that there was no consensus for such a radical change - with Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, a leading opponent - Mr Clarke suggested that the select committee could instigate a national debate by proposing one. Mr Clarke confirmed that he would bring forward proposals next year for a single terrorism Act combining all the various pieces of legislation introduced over the past five years. It would also contain a new definition of terrorism amid concern that the current wording is too wide. --------------------------------------------------- Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate. |
