3 ms·

I do not get this. In many countries police can keep person up-to 24 hours without court order. This guy had clear links to Snowden, so his detention is justifi

by qwerta 13y ago

I do not get this. In many countries police can keep person up-to 24 hours without court order. This guy had clear links to Snowden, so his detention is justifiable (from police point of view). And he could easily avoid UK completely by traveling via Madrid. Some people in USA and Western Europe are held in detention for years or even decades without fair trial. Perhaps we could talk about them?

jacquesm 13y ago
> This guy had clear links to Snowden, so his detention is justifiable (from police point of view). That's the whole point here, Falconer argues that from a police point of view it wasn't justifiable. The fact that there are people in the USA held in detention for years is something I'm not familiar with, the Guantanamo bay prison is not in the USA for that specific reason. And I'm also not familiar with people in Western Europe that are held in detention for years or even decades without a fair trial, which people do you mean (it's off-topic but interesting)?
- qwerta 13y ago
  They could detain him (and eventually charge) under different law (PACE or whatever). 9 hours is practically rounding error. http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-of-arrest/police-detention.html http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspec... Guantanamo _is_ under US jurisdiction. Raul Castro is certainly not boss there. Other cases are illegal immigrants, various `thought criminals`, people accused of crime where court is delayed...
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Guantanamo hinges on the fact that even though it is under US jurisdiction it is not the US. You're preaching to the choir here. I suppose no other examples are forthcoming then.
  - 6d0debc071 13y ago
    They can detain you under the limitations set out in PACE but, as far as I know, they still have to arrest you first and then the custody officer has to accept the arrest. And if they're arresting you for no reason you can then go on to sue them for wrongful arrest.
  - eCa 13y ago
    > They could detain him (and eventually charge) under different law They might have, but they didn't. They chose to hold him under a terrorism law. Probably due to that law not allowing him to not answer questions.

by qwerta 13y ago

jacquesm 13y ago

> This guy had clear links to Snowden, so his detention is justifiable (from police point of view). That's the whole point here, Falconer argues that from a police point of view it wasn't justifiable. The fact that there are people in the USA held in detention for years is something I'm not familiar with, the Guantanamo bay prison is not in the USA for that specific reason. And I'm also not familiar with people in Western Europe that are held in detention for years or even decades without a fair trial, which people do you mean (it's off-topic but interesting)?

qwerta 13y ago
They could detain him (and eventually charge) under different law (PACE or whatever). 9 hours is practically rounding error. http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-of-arrest/police-detention.html http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspec... Guantanamo _is_ under US jurisdiction. Raul Castro is certainly not boss there. Other cases are illegal immigrants, various `thought criminals`, people accused of crime where court is delayed...
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Guantanamo hinges on the fact that even though it is under US jurisdiction it is not the US. You're preaching to the choir here. I suppose no other examples are forthcoming then.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  They can detain you under the limitations set out in PACE but, as far as I know, they still have to arrest you first and then the custody officer has to accept the arrest. And if they're arresting you for no reason you can then go on to sue them for wrongful arrest.
- eCa 13y ago
  > They could detain him (and eventually charge) under different law They might have, but they didn't. They chose to hold him under a terrorism law. Probably due to that law not allowing him to not answer questions.