Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
It's only a very small handful AFAIK.
Which, surely, is more a case of "evidence that going beyond 28 days to 42 is not needed"?
No one has made a convincing case for the 42 day limit. [IMO  ] |
If that's true I tend to agree. Had the 28 days been shown to be totally inadequate, there'd have been a better argument for more time. What's to stop them, under current legislation, from just releasing and immediately rearresting a suspect who's already been held for 28 days if that person is considered a serious threat and they need more time to build a case?