Home Affairs Minister Bill Malarkey has pledged to find out why law chiefs failed, for six years, to spot a major problem with police custody procedures.

Police may have been breaching the 96-hour maximum limit on detention before a suspect must be charged or released, it was discovered recently.

It followed a court judgment - in 2011 - that ruled any time spent on police bail counted towards the 96 hours.

Police forces, here and in the UK, had worked on the basis the ’detention clock’ stopped when a suspect was bailed.

The UK reacted almost immediately and introduced laws to exclude time on police bail from consideration, but the Isle of Man authorities have acted only now, by introducing a retrospective law.

Mr Malarkey said he was ’disappointed’ the matter was not picked up on in 2011.

’It will be my intention to go into the department and try to find out why it was not picked up to make sure, hopefully, nothing like this happens in the future,’ he said.

’Retrospective legislation is not the greatest thing to have to do, but mistakes have been made.It has to be sorted.’

The problem was highlighted only when police chiefs reviewed their investigations workload and its impact on bail processes.

The Police (Detention and Bail) Bill was drawn up, excluding time on police bail from the detention clock, and rushed through the Legislative Council earlier this month.

On Tuesday, the House of Keys was asked to suspend its normal rules to allow all scrutiny stages of the bill to take place in one sitting, to speed up the introduction of the law.

Government fears damages claims or legal action over unlawful detention, until the law is changed.

Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas, who moved the bill, apologised for the rush, but admitted: ’There is an urgency.’

He added: ’It would have been better to have amended legislation during the six years since the [court] decision, especially when the UK Parliament considered and debated the need in 2011 to take urgent steps to restore the status quo.

’I can offer you no reasoned explanation of earlier inactivity and I can say to you, frankly, that I am personally surprised and disappointed nothing was done.’

Even when the Department of Home Affairs began consultation on a new Bail Bill, the anomaly was not raised.

Mr Thomas repeated assurances given by Attorney General John Quinn that the human rights implications, particularly with reference to the bill’s retrospective nature, had been examined - but it was decided the legislation was in the public interest.

Lawrie Hooper (LibVannin, Ramsey) said: ’I have serious concerns about the retrospective nature of this bill.

’I do appreciate in this instance why this may be desirable, but it does not sit comfortably that we are using legislation to interfere with individual human rights - legislation being the almost universal get-out-of-jail-free card, if you’ll pardon the pun, which is allowable under the European Convention.’

He accepted the response was proportionate in the circumstances, but sought an assurance ’this bill will not be cited as precedent, should the government decide to introduce retrospective legislation in the future’.

Members approved the bill.