LIMITS ON PERIOD OF DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE (Hansard, 15 May 1984)

§ Mr. Hurd
I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 33, line 16, leave out 'for the purposes of this section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 98.
Amendment No. 99, in page 33, line 18, leave out from second 'in' to end of line 27 and insert 'England or Wales the time of his arrest'. Government amendments Nos. 100 to 108.

§ Mr. Hurd
These amendments deal with the detention clock. We believe that the phrase "the relevant time" should have a standard meaning, and that is the purpose of amendment No. 97. Amendment Nos. 98, 100 and 106 are essentially drafting amendments to clarify the provisions of clause 2(a), making it clear that the limit on the detention clock does not start in respect of a person arrested by one force on beha'f of another if he is not questioned by the arresting force. Amendments Nos. 101 and 103 fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Committee to permit a maximum of 24 hours' travelling time in England and Wales before the detention clock starts in respect of a person arrested outside England and Wales.

§ Mr. Kaufman
As we said on Second Reading and in Committee, we find the provisions of this clause dubious because they add to the period of detention without charge. That period runs not from the time when the person is arrested, but from a later time. While the Government are saying that the period of detention without charge shall be 286 no longer than 36 hours before the matter reaches a magistrate, and no longer than 96 hours before the person is either charged or released, these provisions add further time to that, and that is a deprivation of liberty which is not acceptable.
I acknowledge that the Government have made an effort to meet some of our misgivings by tightening up some of the provisions. Although the mercies are small, we are grateful for them. We want to narrow down still further the time within which a person can be arrested and the 24 hours and so on begin to run. The Government should accept our amendment, because it would meet the objectives which they have accepted in principle by their amendments.

§ Mr. Hurd
I am not seduced by the right hon. Gentleman's argument tonight, any more than I was in Committee, when we discussed these matters at great length. We believe that the royal commission was right to recommend that the definition of the period of detention must take factors into account other than simply the moment of arrest. If, for different reasons, no investigation can take place until the arrested person reaches a police force area, it is, surely, right to start the clock when he arrives in that area.
We do not want to get into the position where the police will have to release a suspect before he can be interviewed simply because of the time taken in travelling. I do not see why the fact that a criminal has managed to get some distance away from the scene of his crime should enable him to escape justice in that way. We discussed these matters closely in Committee and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have tried to move some way in the direction in which Opposition Members wish.
We are not talking just about administrative convenience. The role of the custody officer is central to the safeguards underlying the detention scheme. The Opposition amendments would undermine the effective ness of his control, and would be against the best interests of the detained person. The differences are likely in almost all cases to be very small. In general, offences are committed locally, and investigated locally. In the great majority of cases, an arrested person is taken speedily to the nearest police station. In the minority of cases, where there is substantial travelling time before investigation can begin, it is right that that should be taken into account in the detention clock.