Clause 4 - Use of telephones for review of police detention
Criminal Justice Bill
6:30 pm
Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
I shall speak in support of the hon. Gentleman. I have been round this course before when we debated the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill a year ago. On another previous Bill, too, we discussed changing the rank of police officer—bringing it down a peg from inspector to superintendent—appropriate to authorise detention powers. We also debated the perfectly reasonable proposition of enabling some form of checking from afar in order to avoid making police officers run around different police stations.
Two questions follow from the two amendments. The first is, what is the justification in practical terms for moving down a peg in seniority in these cases? Logically, the more it becomes possible to review from a distance, the less the need for a low-ranked officer. Understandably, if someone had to be in the station, it would have to be a superintendent, because an inspector could not get to the station every six or nine hours. However, if it were someone from afar, they would not need to be of a lower rank, because inspectors are available across a police force area very easily down a telephone. The proposal is for a twin-track change, to reduce the seniority of the officer and to allow them to conduct reviews from a distance. The Minister must justify both the parts to which I have referred.
Secondly, with regard to the amendment and the clause as a whole, it is not clear quite what the line of communication will be, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said. I have a proposition to test that for the Minister. If a person and their legal representative accept from the beginning that the person is likely to be detained for a long time for various reasons, there will be no great concern periodically. Everyone will almost have signed up in advance to the fact that the six-hour or nine-hour check will happen. If there is consent, a video link from afar may be used—even, arguably, with a less senior officer.
Let us imagine, however, that the case is controversial. It could involve a young adult who had come under the remit of the Youth Justice Board, which has made clear its views about the sort of detention that we are discussing. That would involve wholly different considerations. One might want to insist that a more senior officer be in the cell at the police station to see what is going on, in order to satisfy everyone, not least the young adult, that their interests are being looked after.
I am anxious that we should know much more clearly the two justifications that we have probed with the amendments, and the linked justification for the
much less clear line of communication proposed by the clause.