Proceeding contribution from Baroness Browning (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Police (Detention and Bail) Bill.
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
My Lords, I am sure noble Lords are aware of the circumstances in which this Bill comes to us from the other place. However, I will summarise the position in an effort to assist the House in its unavoidably brief examination of the Bill. Since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, known almost universally as PACE, came into force in January 1986, it has placed an upper limit of 96 hours on the period of pre-charge detention for a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a non-terrorist offence, provided that detention past 36 hours is authorised by a magistrate’s court. That period of detention could be interrupted by one or more periods of bail, and detention time would run up to the time limit only when the person was in police detention; the clock would be paused during any period or periods of bail. That understanding of the limits on detention was shattered last month when the High Court, sitting in Manchester, issued its written judgment in the Hookway case. The court held that, as a matter of statutory construction, the maximum period of 96 hours runs from the time that a person’s detention is first authorised and is not paused by a person’s release on bail. Once the police service had the opportunity to consider that judgment, alongside advice from some of the most eminent members of the Bar, it advised my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that the judgment posed major operational difficulties for it and that the judgment needed to be reversed at the first available opportunity. Let me make it clear to the House that we had to wait until we had the written judgment, so that we could understand its scope, and had also tested with ACPO whether it could continue to protect the public, including victims and witnesses, within the detention and bail framework as redefined by the ruling. ACPO’s very clear advice on 30 June was that any mitigating action it might take could endure only in the short term. That is why my right honourable friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made an Oral Statement in the other place that very same day, setting out the issue and promising urgent legislation to give certainty to all those involved in the process of pre-charge detention and bail. That urgent legislation is of course the Bill before us today.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 729 c607
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Appeals Bail Police Powers Supreme Court Remand in custody
- Legislation
- Police (Detention and Bail) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 18:08:59 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759701
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759701
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759701