The UK government’s bid to detain terrorism suspects for up to six weeks without charge violates the fundamental right to liberty and risks undermining counterterrorism efforts, Human Rights Watch said today. On June 11, the House of Commons will vote on a counterterrorism bill that includes 42-day pre-charge detention and other harmful proposals.

“Many experts, including senior police officers, agree that extending pre-charge detention is a bad idea,” said Judith Sunderland, Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “MPs should now take a principled stand against this dangerous and unnecessary proposal.”

Under the complex provisions of the bill, the Home Secretary could temporarily authorize 42 days of pre-charge detention in terrorism cases, if the director of public prosecution and a chief police officer deem that an extension beyond 28 days is warranted. Parliament would have to approve such authority within seven days, and it would lapse after 30 days.

Faced with criticism from many quarters, the government has offered “concessions” to improve safeguards in the bill. But the most important safeguard – robust judicial scrutiny to prevent arbitrary detention – remains wholly inadequate, said Human Rights Watch. A senior judge must review the detention, but only to assess whether the police are showing due diligence and expediency in the investigation, and whether the investigation requires the person’s continued detention. The judge is not asked to evaluate whether there exist reasonable grounds to believe the person committed a terrorist offense, the ultimate issue at stake in considering whether detention is lawful or not.

“If you were detained, wouldn’t you want the judge to ask whether there are any grounds to believe the accusations against you?” Sunderland said. “It’s not just about whether the police are continuing to investigate, it’s about whether there’s enough evidence to investigate in the first place.”

Human Rights Watch said that the government’s amendments are not enough to bring the bill in line with the United Kingdom’s international human rights obligations:

“No amount of dusting around the edges is going to tidy up this mess,” Sunderland said. “The whole thing should be thrown in the trash.”

A broad consensus of individuals and groups oppose the measure, including Director of Public Prosecution Sir Ken MacDonald, former Justice Minister Lord Falconer, former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, civil rights groups, and Muslim organizations. The parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights called the 42-day detention plan “fundamentally flawed” and warned that it violates the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Muslim Council of Britain has told the government that any extension of pre-charge detention – already the longest by far in the European Union and significantly longer than the permissible period in the United States and Canada – is likely to be counterproductive, and damaging to the battle of hearts and minds that Prime Minister Gordon Brown has identified as crucial to countering terrorism effectively.

“UK counterterrorism policies over the past eight years, like excessive detention without charge, have undermined community relations in Britain and its image abroad,” said Sunderland. “Parliament told Blair that 90 days was too long; it should now make it clear to Brown that 42 days is also unacceptable.”

Human Rights Watch is concerned about other aspects of the terrorism bill, among them:

At the same time, the government has passed up the opportunity to allow intercept evidence to be admissible in court, a recommendation endorsed by a broad spectrum of opinion, and most recently by a specially appointed Privy Council. The bill also fails to address the serious problems with the control order regime, under which terrorism suspects may be subject to serious restrictions on their freedom of movement and association.