Government proposals to allow defendants to be questioned after charge amount to ‘serious oppression’ and need to be carefully controlled, according to a leading academic.

Michael Zander, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, told the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) conference last week that proposed powers to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are ‘completely unacceptable’ and an ‘erosion of civil liberties’.

Having such questioning authorised by magistrates is also unacceptable; control should be exercised by judges, Zander said.

The rule changes would mean defendants could be detained for questioning after a case has been referred to the prosecutor for a charging decision for up to 24 hours on the authority of a police inspector, and thereafter on application to a magistrate.

The proposals will also provide for a power to attach a bail condition to return to the police station for further questioning, and to arrest and detain for the purpose of such questioning.

In addition, the post-charge caution would be amended to allow adverse inferences to be drawn from a suspect’s refusal to answer questions.

The Home Office says the changes are necessary ‘in the light of operational demands on the police’. Joy Merriam, CLSA chairman, said they would pre-empt the trial process and be wrong in principle.

‘The system is already weighted against the defence and in favour of the prosecution and this proposal extends the investigation process up to the doors of the court.’

Addressing delegates on wider issues, Des Hudson, Law Society chief executive, described the legal aid system as fragile and said the threat to the criminal justice system had never been so great.

On the thorny issue of very high cost criminal cases (VHCC), he said if savings can be made, the money should be shared between VHCC players at the bar and solicitors doing police station and magistrates’ court work.