Sir, Gordon Brown makes a passionate case for extending the time limit to 42 days (Opinion, June 2) but he does not succeed in validating it. In particular, he fails to address two important points.

The attacks of 9/11 in the US were more horrific than anything that we have had to suffer. Yet the US does not feel that it can incarcerate its residents for anywhere like as long a period. Moreover, European countries, including Spain, which experienced the bombings in Madrid, have not changed their laws in so drastic a fashon. Why, then, are we different?

Sam Merchant
Woking, Surrey

Sir, The claim that the recent prevalence of computer evidence in criminal trials justifies such powers is misleading, since this growth has occurred in all serious criminal investigations, including the series of successful recent prosecutions in terrorist cases — as in the Dhiren Barot case quoted by Gordon Brown. Barot pleaded guilty and his co-defendants were convicted using the current legislation, even with the complexities cited. The truth is that the Crown Prosecution Service does not wait for computer, telephone or evidence from overseas before making decisions as to the charging of suspects, it assesses the likelihood of a prima facie case. Furthermore, where there is a delay in obtaining such evidence, the issue is normally one of man-hours and resources that can be resolved if priorities are reordered. Such is not the proper basis to curtail fundamental freedoms that we all share and should cherish.

Pavlos Panayi
London EC4

Sir, The argument and direction of the proposals should be carefully weighed by everyone concerned to find a balance between the threats of organised violence, which do exist in today’s world, and the defence of the civil liberties on which our democratic way of life depends.

It would be unfortunate if defenders of civil liberties cornered themselves into an extreme position of arguing that such threats are non-existent and never permit even temporary or proportionate legal limitations, whatever the nature of future threats may be.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, QC
Professor of Law Emeritus, London School of Economics

Sir, Contrary to your report (June 3), I have not “heard enough to persuade me to vote for the Government” over pre-charge detention. I welcome the Home Secretary’s willingness to make changes to the Bill but there are still issues of principle here. People held for lengthy periods should know why they are being held. They should at least be charged with something. Laws are already in place that permit emergency action in emergency situations but Parliament first has to agree that the circumstances at the time warrant it. I will continue to listen to what ministers have to say but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for giving ministers the right to exercise emergency powers without prior reference to Parliament.

Richard Burden, MP
House of Commons

Sir, Surely, as a matter of conscience, in which one must weigh up personal liberty versus possible increased community risk, the decision on extending pre-charge detention should be based on a free vote for MPs. This would avoid the political conflict that leads whipped MPs to vote with their party rather than on the issue itself.

Richard T. Taylor, MP
House of Commons

Explore Letters

• Feedback