Review: Home Office study
01 January 1991
Review: Home Office study
on the Prevention of Terrorism Act
artdoc August=1993
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