Proceeding contribution from Charles Clarke (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
I am prepared to discuss doing precisely that with the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues. There is an advantage to what he suggests. He is right to highlight giving more flexibility to judges to decide how to supervise the process. The fact that the time period is under judicial supervision is not highlighted enough. We are now suggesting that it should be supervised by a High Court judge. That is an important part of the process, which should reassure some who have been worried. To avoid doubt, I stress that the police perceive judicial supervision to be important. If colleagues read the evidence that the police gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, they will find that the police set out the advantages of that process for an investigation.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 438 c922
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal investigation Detainees Evidence Incitement Judges Police Powers Prosecutions Public interest Police custody Negligence Terrorism Training Remand in custody 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 15:59:33 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273675
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273675
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273675