Home Office study on the Prevention of Terrorism Act (feature)
01 July 2003
The Home Office Research and Planning Unit published the results of a study of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Britain on 1 April - a year and 10 months after the results were referred to by the Home Secretary in a Parliamentary Question in June 1991. The findings were thus unavailable to MPs in the annual renewal debate of the PTA on March 10th and no MP appeared to be aware of the study.
It was carried out in response from a request from the Inquiry which was set up in 1989, under the Chairpersonship of Sir John May, to investigate the issues surrounding the arrest and conviction of the Guildford 4 and the Maguire 7. It focused on the operation of the legal rules and examined the extent to which detainees obtained legal advice and had someone informed of their detention. In addition, it collected information on police interviewing, consular access, the provision of medical attention, procedures for reviewing detention and the length and outcome of detention.
It examined the custody records of 253 people who were detained under the PTA between 22 March, 1989 and 11 November, 1990. The report implies that this was the total number of all detentions in the period. But figures on the PTA published quarterly by the Home Office suggest that many more people were detained (see Statewatch, vol 1 no 5).
The conclusion of the study, which is noted in a summary at the start of the report, is that:
In the majority of cases it appears that these (the safeguards under PACE and the PTA) are being implemented correctly. Nevertheless, the report notes that in a minority of cases there must be cause for some concern stemming from the non-recording of information that should be entered in the custody record or from the apparent unawareness of or misinterpretations of relevant legislative provisions.
It then goes on to point out that these deficiencies could have "serious repercussions" not for the detainee but for the officers, should they "be called to account for the events during a period of PTA detentions".
This conclusion, however, is not supported by the study's data. To begin with, there is evidence in the study of widespread recording violations under the Codes of Practice. A few examples are as follows: in 16 cases where a request for legal advice was made there was no reference in the custody record to any attempts to contact a solicitor; in 30 (46%) of the cases in which delay to legal advice was authorised, no grounds were stated; in 36 cases, no grounds for authorising the delay in having someone informed about their detention, were listed; in 38 (54%) of the cases, in which the detainee had a right to have their Embassy notified, there was no indication on the custody record that the detainee was told of their right; in 10% of all reviews by the custody officer either no grounds were given for continued detention or the grounds bore no relation to any of those specified in PACE or the PTA.
Secondly, there was very considerable and unaccountable variation in the use of certain powers. For example, the Merseyside police delayed access to legal advice in 69% of the cases compared with the Metropolitan Police who delayed access in 23% of the cases. The report records that all the Merseyside detentions relate to Northern Irish terrorism but no explanation is given why there is such a difference in the interpretation of the power to delay access to legal advice. Similarly, there was also considerable variation in the extent to which people were permitted to notify someone outside. In the Metropolitan Police District it was 55% while in the Merseyside police it was only 36%. This reflected Merseyside Police practice of using their powers to delay notification but no explanation is given as to why the Merseyside police delay notification in a far higher proportion of cases than the MPD.
Thirdly, the report shows the extent to which PTA detainees, for one reason or another, do not have ad