Bermuda Democratic Alliance MP Mark Pettingill argued yesterday that the law determining how long suspects can be held in police custody needs to be firmed up — and fast.

The defence attorney complained to the House of Assembly that "there really isn't a clear guideline" on such detention and that lawyers tend to object only once a client has been held for more than 72 hours.

He said the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act — a law reforming the way police carry out their duties which is being implemented in four stages — should have brought clarity on the issue.

But he claimed the phasing-in of the legislation wasn't being done swiftly enough, for which there was no excuse.

Shadow Attorney General Trevor Moniz claimed the real problem was that the new Hamilton police and court building, which he said was needed for many of PACE's provisions, was "way behind schedule" due to the "disastrous" way the construction had been handled.

"It's something like a year-and-a-half, two years, behind schedule," he said.

Both MPs spoke during debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence (Suspension of Commencement of Specified Provisions) Act 2010, which MPs approved.

The legislation, according to Attorney General Michael Scott, will prevent certain sections of an amendment to the PACE Act, dealing with police detention powers and known as PACE 2, coming into effect yet.

The Justice Minister said the bill was simply an administrative matter correcting a previous error, which would have allowed the sections to be enacted before police were ready.

"For example, existing police facilities are not yet PACE-compliant, as would be warranted by the full enactment of PACE 2 and police personnel have not yet undergone the custody officer training necessary," said Mr. Scott.

Mr Pettingill said he struggled to understand the Minister's explanation of yesterday's bill, even after reading three times the written statement provided to MPs.

"I'm still going back trying to work out what exactly are we talking about, what exactly are we doing here. Clearly there is a problem. I'm just not sure how we've ended up in this position.

"We are passing a law to suspend a law that we already passed, until such time as we can implement it properly. We shouldn't be in this position where we are having to pass legislation in this particular manner. It borders on bizarre. You create what's called a conflict of law or, in layman's terms, confusion."

He added: "These Police and Criminal Evidence Act provisions have been going on now for some time and, for some reason, we are just not getting on with it with the level of expediency that one would expect, especially in the current climate."

Mr Moniz described what happened with the PACE 2 amendment as a "foul-up" which was now being corrected.

He insisted PACE could not be implemented in the way planned because of the delay in completing the new police building.

Public Works Minister Derrick Burgess denied that, telling MPs the original 1997 building plans were not PACE compliant.

Mr. Moniz hit back: "With all due respect, that's complete rubbish." Deputy Premier Mr Burgess accused him of "unparliamentary language".

Mr Scott finished the debate by saying he completely rejected Mr. Pettingill's submissions about the PACE implementation. The Minister said Government would be criticised if it brought in the provisions without proper training for officers.

And he said Mr Moniz was "somewhat off base" regarding the police and court building. "PACE was never linked to the building," he said.