Proceeding contribution from John Denham (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
May I caution my right hon. Friend not to overstate his case? I do not question the integrity of the police in proposing 90 days, and they may well have a good case. However, according to documents released to the Home Affairs Committee, when the Government agreed to support the 90-day proposal, they had received only two documents from the Association of Chief Police Officers—the ACPO press release of 21 July and a two-page summary of two difficult cases, neither of which is analysed to provide a case for 90 days. It would be better if my right hon. Friend did not overstate the strength of his case, and would he not have done better to ask the police to provide a more substantial report before making a decision?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 439 c339-40
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Civil liberties Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Appeals Detainees Applications Arrests Evidence Incitement Judges National security Prosecutions Police custody Terrorism Remand in custody Cryptography High Court Habeas corpus Encouragement of terrorism Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-09-24 16:00:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272418
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272418
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272418