ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE (Hansard, 15 May 1984)

§ Mr. Mellor
I beg to move amendment No. 157, in page 49, line 26, at end insert— '(10A) In relation to a person who has been detained under the terrorism provisions at a place other than a police station, the relevant time is the time at which he arrived at that place. '

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 158, in page 49, line 27, leave out subsection (11).

§ Mr. Mellor
Amendment No. 157 parallels an amendment to clause 50 that the House has already agreed. In the case of people detained under the terrorism provisions, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 48 hours by virtue of clause 52(11)(a). The question is, 48 hours from when? The answer is "the relevant time", but the definition of relevant time in clause 37 does not work in the case of a person who is detained, as indeed he might he under the terrorism provisions, in a place other than a police station. That is why the amendment is necessary.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
I should like to speak to amendment No. 158, which the alliance has tabled. It was not intended 296 to be taken in isolation but as part of a package of amendments to deal with the delay that should be permitted, under clause 52, for access to legal advice. That delay should not be more than six hours in all cases.
Many arguments have been deployed in an effort to justify a person who is held in custody being deprived of access to a solicitor. One seems to be that solicitors are a dishonest breed who leak information and that it is impossible to find any sanctions against them. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is good enough to attack monstrous behaviour that amounts to an abuse of the process of the court by police officers through disciplinary proceedings—we heard that from the Minister of State—it is good enough for leaks of information and misconduct by solicitors to be dealt with by disciplinary proceedings before the Law Society.
The Government have completely misunderstood the part that solicitors play in most criminal investigations when they go to see their clients in a police station. In the vast majority of cases the solicitor, having seen his client, ensures that there is a speedy conclusion of the inquiry, that his client does not prevaricate and that the matter is tidied up by a frank statement of confession or, if there appears to be no or little evidence against the suspect, the suspect is advised to say nothing. That, for all practical purposes, concludes interviewing by the police. Permitting early access to solicitors is efficacious, practicable and sensible. Depriving the suspect of his right to see his solicitor for as long as 36 hours in most cases and 48 hours in specified ones is a severe infringement of the liberty of the individual.

§ Mr. Mellor
Lord Jellicoe considered this matter with great care. He recommended that the right of access to legal advice should be extended to terrorist suspects but that there should be modifications to reflect the essential differences between the circumstances of someone who is detained under terrorist regulations, as opposed to criminals held under criminal powers.
Amendment No. 158 would doubly destroy the scheme which Lord Jellicoe proposed and which the Government accepted. It would reduce to 36 the period of 48 hours which received Lord Jellicoe's approval when he was consulted on the matter. We believe that 48 hours is appropriate and reflects the differences between terrorist and conventional criminal offences. Secondly, amendment No. 158 would mean that delay in granting access to a solicitor would be permitted only in accordance with clause 52(5).
For a terrorist suspect, that would apply only when the suspect had been detained for a serious arrestable offence. In the nature of things, a terrorist suspect is not often detained for a serious arrestable offence but because of a suspicion that he may have committed a terrorist offence. He is detained to determine whether charges should be brought against him and whether the exclusion powers, deportation or other powers existing in relation to terrorists should be applied. For that reason, I believe that the amendment is fatally flawed and that the Government's scheme, which is based on Lord Jellicoe's recommendations, remains the one with which the House should keep faith.