Tonight:
5°c
Police criticised over terror raids
24 Nov 2009- No movement in independence talks
- Woman in court over stabbed girl
- No assurances offered over Qatada
- Banks 'must change or be broken up'
- Rangers staff 'not cut immediately'
- Extradition date for retired Briton
- Student loan penalty plan 'ditched'
- Implant clinics 'referring to NHS'
- Nestle spends £500m on UK growth
- Pay call over Whitehall tax issue
Police have been criticised for failing to consult properly with prosecutors over anti-terror raids which resulted in a dozen arrests but no criminal charges.
Lord Carlile, the Government's independent reviewer of terror legislation, said Greater Manchester Police should have discussed the arrests with specialist Crown Prosecution Service lawyers much earlier.
But he backed the tactics used by police during Operation Pathway in April.
Some of the men were held at gunpoint in broad daylight on university campuses - leading to accusations of excessive force. Lord Carlile said GMP were "probably right" to take no chances.
He wrote: "It was unwise of the police in this case not to actively seek legal advice from the CPS during the process of planning the arrests.
"Such advice should in fact have been sought in advance, even in the compressed time period in which all were working because of various events in the operation."
"I recommend that the CPS should at the very least be kept informed of counter-terrorism operations and asked to provide any material advice as soon as arrest of identified individuals is seen as likely. Indeed, common sense and good judgment demand that they should be involved in an advisory capacity before arrest."
The raids were brought forward after the country's top anti-terrorism officer was photographed walking into Downing Street with papers showing details of police plans. Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick resigned the following day.
Lord Carlile said other people involved in the meeting at Downing Street had used a different entrance, and said this should be common practice in future.
He wrote: "I recommend that, in future, all persons attending meetings concerned with national security, wherever they occur, should seek to avoid places where it is suspected cameras may be present, in the absence of a clear decision that publicity would in no way harm national security."
