Dunno but it seems strange that a country as paranoid about security as the US has managed to bumble along for 200+ years without the need for an Official Secrets Act

Yes, I am aware of that, that's the schedule 7 limit which does not require a suspicion.
But the Terrorism Act 2006 provides for detention up to 28 days (I was wrong about 14 days, it was doubled in 2006) if there is a suspicion of a terrorist crime.
After the nine hours under schedule 7, if they had had a suspicion of a terrorist crime, they could have held Miranda for up to a month under the Terrorism Act 2006.

But they didn't.
One has to ask oneself, why?

The most likely answer is that they still had no suspicion of such a crime.

Nope, it is 14 days.

As I say it's 14 days but anyway, that's easy. Obviously at that point they either felt they didn't have sufficient evidence to charge Miranda, or else having seized the kit, either saw no point in pursuing it further, or never intended to do so.


If we're allowing ourselves to get into pure personal speculation, my money would go on them not having had enough time to access encrypted files within the time available, but equally I'm far from convinced that they ever really intended to charge Miranda with anything. Which isn't to say that no offence might be made out, please note; it seems to be uncontested that he was carrying stolen data, that in the wrong hands, we are told (and has not been denied) presented a threat to national security and to life.

On the 14 days, hardly anybody is held for that length of time anyway, and one reason for this may be that the government is aware that this draconian and ridiculous law is a world class anomaly of which we should be ashamed. AFAIK even US law only permits detention for a maximum 48 hours. But the lengthy period seems to have acquired shrug-of-the-shoulders status with the British public.

You may be interested to know that an anti-Schedule 7 case is currently progressing through the ECHR, having already been declared admissible, and in fact HM Gov has till 12 September to make submissions. Those should make interesting reading.

Update:

Schedule 7 has survived the latest Human Rights challenge in a [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870616High Court ruling[/url earlier today

"The wife of a convicted terrorist has lost a major challenge against the British police's power to stop and question people at airports."

Does major mean completely pointless?

[url=http://auerfeld.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/buried-in-the-comments-greenwald-miranda-clegg-and-an-indefinite-number-of-documents/An interesting observation on the Miranda case[/url

Especially interesting are Nick Clegg's original comments in his Guardian interview on 23 August:

"The intent behind detaining Miranda was the same: to retrieve or destroy classified information."

The statement was subsequently deleted and this footnote added:

[i• This article was amended on 23 August 2013 after a request from the deputy prime minister’s office based on legal reasons. The footnote was amended on 25 August 2013 to give greater clarity[/i

I wonder what "legal reasons" led to Clegg's comments being removed?

That is my point.
Schedule 7 is purported to be an anti-terrorist measure but was used in a case where terrorism is very probably not the issue.
Was it legal? Very probably, under schedule 7.
Was it right? To have an anti-terrorist law where terrorism doesn't even have to be suspected is way too catch-all and wide open for abuse, as this case probably shows.

...rather like quoting "anti-terrorism law" to prevent photographers practicing in city centres, something that was enforced by the police until campaigning provided some further guidance after MPs got involved - give a little extra power and it WILL be abused until it gets reigned in again.

A bit devil's advocate, but if a person happens to be a mule of stolen security data that poses a grave risk to national security and a threat to life in the wrong hands, then wouldn't it fit under the general label of terrorism-related matters?


Just the argument that was heard and rejected in yesterday's case, and which will exercise the ECHR in September in another case.

I've now had the opportunity to consider the judgment in [url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/2573.htmlthe Sylvie Beghal case[/url. I must say that I can't fault the logic.

The judgment also refers to annual reports by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which reviews naturally encompass the Schedule 7 powers, and what sounds like an ongoing number of consultations, checks and balances.

More to the point, The detailed judgment clearly addresses and deals with all the general principle and specific objections that have been raised earlier in the thread.

Hmm.

Judging by the latest reports on this Miranda 'row' it sounds like the authorities were right to hold Miranda for every second of his detention.

More to the point, why were so many UK secrets entrusted to a relatively low-level operative like Snowden?

I'd also suggest there's more chance of secrets being leaked while in the hands of the Met than any journalist

... and then let him go?
Doesn't square does it?