I don't think there's a lawyer alive and working who's ever appeared in any part of a treason case and I think we should tread in that historic territory very carefully.

Further suicide bombings in the UK must be expected, and the targets are unpredictable.

Occasionally one feels that an individual politician is trying to browbeat the judiciary, and that is wholly inappropriate.

On the evidence I have seen and heard, I believe that the security situation in Northern Ireland and the continuing danger of intimidation of those called for jury service, justifies the continued scheduling of offences.

I don't myself think that increasing it to 28 days is going to make a very significant amount of difference.

A more searching system is required to reflect the seriousness of the state holding someone in high-security custody without charge for as long as three months, ... I question whether what is proposed in the bill would be proof to challenge under the Human Rights Act given the length of extended detention envisaged.

I have been told that there were people who ought to have been prosecuted and about whom it was thought they could be prosecuted if they had had enough time to gather evidence while they were in custody. I was provided with a considerable amount of material and I was satisfied that was the case.

ID cards could be of some value in the fight against terrorism but they are probably of quite limited value.

Given that there is the control order system in existence, it would be preferable for that system to be used against the persons concerned until suitable memoranda have been achieved.