Leading article: An unhealthy obsession with counting the days

It is hard to feel anything other than exasperation with the Government's decision to try for a further extension of the period for which terrorist suspects can be held without being charged. How many times must ministers confront a resounding "No" from Parliament and people before they accept that the limit has been reached?

The discussion document published yesterday, and presented by the Home Secretary, says that there is a "clear case" for increasing the time from the present 28 days to 42 an extension, that is, of another two weeks in a very few exceptional cases. On closer acquaintance, the case seems about as far from clear as it is possible to be.

At 28 days, the period of permitted detention without charge is already the longest in any democratic country. Is Britain so uniquely vulnerable to terrorism that we alone need an even more draconian measure? How many times since the 28-day period was introduced have the police had to release a suspect because time had run out? How many times have they even come close to the limit except in so far as investigations, like so much else, might swell to fit the time available?

A picture was painted yesterday of future scenarios in which the complexity of the evidence, the multiplicity of countries involved and the number of contemporaneous plots would make 28 days dangerously short. If such circumstances did arise, however and with terrorism, no one can ever say never would there not be justification for invoking a state of emergency, which can be done under existing law?

The weakness of the Government's case was evident from the myriad conditions and qualifications that Jacqui Smith set out, as though in mitigation. The 42 days would apply to a very small number of exceptional cases. It would have to have the prior approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police. It would then have to be placed before Parliament and subject to a vote. Individual detentions would have to be approved by a judge every seven days.

Appearances can be deceptive, but even Ms Smith answered questions as though her heart was not completely in it. Nor should this be surprising. The present 28 days was the maximum period of detention without charge that was acceptable to Parliament, even in the direct aftermath of the London bombings. Tony Blair's quest for 90 days brought him the only parliamentary defeat of his time in office. We now know even more.

We know, for instance, that the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, would have resigned had Mr Blair managed to get the provision for 90-day detention through Parliament. We also know that the present Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, believes that prosecutors have "managed comfortably" with the 28 day limit and sees no need to press for more. And we know, too, that the Government's own Security Minister, Admiral Lord West, remained to be convinced that 28 days was too little at least before he had breakfast with the Prime Minister.

The Liberal Democrats put up a doughty fight against 90 days two years ago, and, even in their leaderless state, have resumed the good fight now. Their opposition to the most illiberal aspects of successive anti-terrorist measures has provided the Lords, led by several senior judges, with some of their finest hours. But when even the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis who yields to no one in his enthusiasm for punishing felons produces an ardent defence of civil liberties to support his opposition to longer detention for suspected terrorists, the Government should know that it has lost the argument and retreat with what remains of its dignity intact.

Interesting? Click here to explore further