PLANS to allow MPs to scrutinise terrorism cases before they reach court are a "recipe for confusion" that could undermine the right to a fair trial, peers have warned.
The independence of both parliament and the judiciary would be put at risk and trials could collapse if MPs are asked to judge whether a suspect should be detained for longer without charge.
Ministers had agreed to give parliament a vote on whethe
r to grant a "reserve power" change for backing contentious plans to allow suspects to be held for up to 42 days.
Under the legislation, MPs and peers would vote on whether to grant a temporary "reserve power" for the Home Secretary, allowing courts to authorise detention for up to 42 days if there was an operational need.
But a critical report from the House of Lords constitution committee warns that the "bill risks conflating the roles of Parliament and the judiciary, which would be quite inappropriate".
Politicians would "have to tread a tightrope" to avoid prejudicing any trial, the peers said.
The Lords' report also highlighted a little-noticed part of the bill: that inquests would be allowed to take place without a jury.
Lord Goodlad, the chairman of the House of Lords constitution committee, said: "We are concerned that some of the proposals being put forward by the government in the counter-terrorism bill would place inappropriate responsibilities on Parliament."
He added: "We are deeply concerned that the independence of the judiciary may appear to be undermined and that trials may be prejudiced. We are also critical of the proposal that ministers should be able to order that an inquest be held without a jury."
