Gordon Brown’s plan to extend the 28-day limit for holding terror suspects was in tatters last night after opposition from the Government’s senior law officers as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Both the Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC, and the Solicitor-General, Vera Baird, QC, believe that the case has not yet been made to extend the period of detention, The Times has learnt.

Yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, told the Commons Home Affairs Committee that the Crown Prosecution Service had found the 28-day limit “useful and effective”. Asked if he would be joining calls to go beyond that, he said: “The most I can say is that it is a matter of record that we have not asked for an increase. We are satisfied with the position as it stands at the moment.”

The blows dealt by senior legal figures to the Prime Minister’s plans came as The Times learnt that the Commons committee was unconvinced of the case for extending the limit. The MPs are currently looking into counter-terrorism proposals.

‘Items sent as earthquake aid’

Hidden among clothing were goods selected and purchased to support the activities of terrorists, a court was told

Multimedia

• Pictures: Glasgow airport attack

BACKGROUND

• Brown plans to double 28-day detention limit

• Men in bungled raid say police attacked again

• More than Vigilance

• 'Dirty bomb' mastermind plotted wave of atrocities across Britain

• Jihadi house parties of hate

Related Links

• Student faces jail over jihadist recruiting

• Home Office bans suspect from AS levels

• MPs question MI5 chief on his security priorities

Sir Ken gave warning that, were an extension to be passed by Parliament, it would prove hard to implement. Courts “very rigorously” scrutinise applications to extend the period for which a suspect can held without charge, he said; “it might be quite difficult” for a prosecutor to persuade a court after 25 or 26 days. “The longer you’ve got somebody in custody without finding the evidence to charge, the tougher it is to make these applications,” he said.

The two government law officers want to avoid the scenario of suspected terrorists being released because the time limit has been reached. Yet they believe that the evidence for an extension has not been produced and are concerned that the proposed safeguard that judges would approve any extension could be compromised, because defendants would not have access to the case against them.

The law officers’ concerns have not been aired publicly, but yesterday Lord Goldsmith, QC, who stepped down as Attorney-General when Tony Blair left No 10, came out strongly against an extension. He had seen no evidence to justify going beyond 28 days, he said, and confirmed that he had privately opposed Mr Blair’s attempts to introduce a 90-day limit – saying that he would have quit had they been approved by Parliament.

The lineup of opposition leaves Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and the Association of Chief Police Officers as the only senior figures in law-and-order circles to have spoken for an extension. But Sir Ian’s credibility has been undermined by the furore over the shooting dead in London of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was mistaken for a terrorist.

Despite having heard from Sir Ian and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, MPs on the committee are said to believe they have seen no evidence supporting police being allowed to hold suspects for longer than 28 days.

Last week Admiral Lord West of Spithead, the Security Minister, appeared uncertain in an interview of the need for extending the time limit – but after a meeting at No 10 stated that he was in favour.

The MPs, chaired by Keith Vaz, yesterday heard evidence for the last time before they report next month. Lord Goldsmith told them he was sure the proposals were “based on a genuine belief that it is the right thing to do in protecting the country. I do not take the view that, if the proposal was to extend to 56 days, that is justified by the evidence.” He had seen no evidence while in office to support going beyond 28 days, but it might have emerged since, he said.

Mr Blair’s attempt to introduce a 90-limit led to his first Commons defeat. Parliament agreed a compromise to double the limit to 28 days. Mr Brown is determined to get an extension to the limit although he has yet to specify by how many days.

Lord Goldsmith told the committee: “If the 90-day proposal had come from the Commons unamended, I would have found it impossible to vote for it in the Lords.” That would have had inevitable consequences for his position in the Government, he said. His position had been “well known” within Government but he had never made an explicit threat to resign.

The committee also held a private briefing at which the MI5 Director-General, Jonathan Evans, detailed the terrorist threat facing Britain.

A spokesman for Mr Brown told reporters at a regular briefing: “It is the Government’s view that there is a case for considering an extension beyond 28 days as long as there are the appropriate safeguards in place.”

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor the last Attor-ney-General have seen the evidence to go beyond 28 days. Terrorism will be defeated by good intelligence, professional policing and the rigorous application of justice, not by incursions into the freedoms and rights that British subjects have had for centuries.”

Time limits

Precharge detention time limits

Canada 1 day

US 2 days

South Africa 2 days

Germany 2 days

Denmark 3 days

Italy 4 days

Russia 5 days

Spain 5 days

France 6 days

Ireland 7 days

Turkey 7.5 days

Australia 12 days

Source: Liberty

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads