Islington Residents Oppose 90 Day Detention

Emily speaking in Parliament against 90 days detainment.  Keith Vaz MP, Sadiq Khan MP and David Winnick MP are seated behind her in the photos. They all support an amendment that would set the period of detention at 28 days

Wednesday 9th November 2005

A survey carried out by Emily Thornberry MP on her website, www.emilythornberry.com,  has shown that Islington South and Finsbury residents are not convinced that there is a case for extending the maximum period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects. The results showed that:

61% believe a case has not been made for increasing the period of detention.
58% oppose an increase to 28 days.
75% oppose an increase to 90 days.

Emily said:

‘The results of the survey show many of my constituents share my concern about the Terrorism Bill. Extending the period of detention will not make Islington safer and will damage community relations. Our system of justice is based on the fact that the police can and do make mistakes. That is why we have trials! I do not want to risk having young British Muslims arrested and kept in custody for 3 months on a police officer’s hunch. I would like to see the period of detention stay at 14 days but have been seeking a compromise with the government on 28 days. It seems unlikely that consensus will be reached and so I will be forced to vote against the government. ’

A sample of responses to the survey are below. One constituent, on hearing of Emily’s position, simply sent in ‘hurrah’. Other responses were:

• ‘I do not think that the current law should be amended at all.’ 
  
• ‘At present, I'd like to see how the 28 days' detention is used  -ie are the police and other services efficient enough to make good use of this time.  If so, and they can present a solid argument for needing further time to complete their investigation then, if there are valid grounds, I would support an extension   of, say a further 28 days.’ 
  
• ‘I think that the Government is right to extend the time limit, but also believe that a compromise should be sought between 1 month and three months detention, I would recommend 2 months (60 Days). It would also be important to review this matter after a couple of years, to see how many suspects had been detained and the average release time without charge. If it was then proven that the Police were being too heavy handed then the 60 days could be rolled back to your 28 Days or even less.’ 
  
• ‘I see that people in your position are being placed under immense pressure to go with 90 days, and that during the debate difficult decisions may arise. But you have been right to show independence on this crucial issue.’ 
  
• ‘I am utterly opposed to this proposal.  I believe it would be a "recruiting sergeant" for terrorists.  The fact that the police and security services want it ought not to be conclusive even in this emotive sphere.  Please resist this illiberal proposal as vigorously as you can.’ 
  
• ‘Thank you for objecting to the 90 day detention period, which would fundamentally undermine one of our most important rights. I think the compromise of 28 days is more than enough. One of the problems with the government's approach to anti-terrorism is that if liberty is dispensed with in the name of security, then the terrorists have won.’
  
• ‘I do believe that the Metropolitan Police and Security Services are correct in asking for an extension to the current 7 days. The Police can ask a Judge to extend that period by days should more time be required. Being in the 'frontline' of protecting our Country we citizens, must respect their professionalism and diligence in detecting and consolidating potential evidence to ensure a just outcome. The inherent format of the current version of the bill will ensure that each terror suspect receives a Judicial hearing every seven days. This is rightly so. I hope that you will support the Bill.’ 
  
• ‘When people who daily risk their lives to protect us recommend a particular period of detention without charge, which I can understand is necessary in our technologically advanced society, then they should be supported.’ 
  
• ‘The danger of aggrieved people being released after 90 days will cause more danger of their  supporting or becoming involved in terrorism than the danger that a terrorist is free to do his worst if he is not  detained for more than 14 days. The preventative orders should stop any potential terrorist  to execute a plot while he is being investigated by the police.’ 
  
• ‘The government's proposed legislation is a dangerous erosion of basic human rights. It must not be allowed to become law.’ 
  
• ‘I wish you to give full support to Mr Blair's government on this issue.’
  
• A Conservative supporter said ‘it is also very encouraging to know that even where you and I might disagree on other issues, we do agree on what is most fundamental to our democracy’.
   
  Editors Notes:

1.      The full survey is available here

2.      Emily’s speech can be read by clicking here.