TNAG-2321-FCO40-3365-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 230

CAT/C/SR.92 page 8

32. Mr. Burns had mentioned the possibility of video recordings of interrogation. The Government was opposed to the introduction of such recordings, which it considered might jeopardize the interview procedure. Since interrogation was designed to collect intelligence, it was important to leave the person interrogated some room for manoeuvre.

33.

The question of a suspect's access to a solicitor during police detention had been raised. It was recognized that that question caused concern. Provisions existed to have the family of an arrested suspect informed of his whereabouts and such information had to be given within 48 hours of the arrest. In a few specific circumstances, the time limit could be extended beyond 48 hours, when authorization had to be made by a police officer and the detainee informed in writing.

34.

Several members of the Committee had expressed interest in

the possibility, currently being studied, of an independent commissioner responsible for inspecting the holding centres in which terrorist suspects were interrogated. The idea had arisen during the debate on

the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. Discussions were going on between the Government and the police as to how such a scheme might operate in practice. The objective was to achieve an effective scheme which would command public confidence.

35. The project was still in the formative stage, but certain features had already emerged. The commissioner would have access at any time to the holding centres; he would ensure that the procedures relating to the treatment of terrorist suspects were being followed and that the code of practice which the Government was preparing on the treatment of terrorist suspects was also being followed. The Government would be studying the project with a number of interested organizations. Such a system might operate in the same way as the arrangements for the lay visiting of police stations and the boards of visitors which were able to interview inmates in prison at any time. That system was in force in England and Wales.

36.

The

Another question had related to the detention of asylum-seekers. power to detain was used very sparingly and such detention was closely followed by the Immigration Service and the Home Office Immigration Department. Any complaint was transmitted directly to the Home Secretary.

37. Several members of the Committee had expressed concern about attacks on the right to silence in Northern Ireland. Prior to the adoption of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, which had changed the law in Northern Ireland, the law there, as in England and Wales, had precluded the prosecution or the trial judge from suggesting that an adverse inference might be drawn from the fact that an accused person had chosen to remain silent when questioned by the police, even though an innocent person might reasonably have been expected to proclaim his innocence. Before the adoption of the new Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, the Government had long debated the previous law in the light of the seriousness of terrorist violence and the difficulties faced by the police in bringing to justice persons who had been trained in resisting police questioning. In no sense was the 1988 Order an attack on the right to silence: no one was obliged to incriminate himself or to make a statement. The Order was merely a limited measure which removed an