Terrorism Law

Hi everyone,

I've recently been asked to write a piece on the definition of terrorism and I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on S1 Terrorism Act or could point me in the direction of relevant resources?

Would be great to get a debate going here.

Thanks guys

A good staring point might be David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and his report, June, this year - available on line - see section 3, Definition of Terrorism.

S. Setty, 'What's in a name? How nations define terrorism ten years after 9/11', 33 U. Pa.J. Int'l L. 1 2011-2012 - available from Hien On-Line.

See Human Rights Watch, 'In the Name of Security', 2012 - available on line - since 9/11, 140 states have enacted or revised counter-terrorism law, many with excessively broad definitions - seen by HRW as opportunism.

Look at UN resolution 1373 and tell me if you can find a definition of terrorism in it, despite the fact that it places binding obligations on states to counter-terrorism. No internationally agreed definition of terrorism.

Take this statement from Lord Phillips in 2006:
"Terrorism is not readily defined and whether activities amount to terrorism can depend upon your point of view. One man's terrorist can be another man's freedom fighter." 'Terrorism and Human Rights', 2 High Ct Q R 61, 2006. Strange for the then LCJ to say that terrorism is not readily defined when a ready definition was in front of him in S 1 of the Terrorism Act. Strange also that he should resort to a hackneyed cliche which confuses the means with the end. In the international context, however, it is that idea of self determination, struggles for national freedom against oppressive regimes, which creates a problem in finding consensus.

Main criticism of UK definition is, however, its excessive breadth.

Recently decided case might also be useful - Al-Sirri v SSHD [2012] UKSC 54

Thanks for your reply. I really appreciated your points and especially enjoyed reading David Anderson's report.

I also feel that Lord Carlile's 2007 report on the definition raises some important, and possibly still unanswered questions.

I am primarily focusing on the definition in the UK, although I am obviously using international laws as a comparison.

Is it possible that the excessive breadth of the definition could be seen as a positive catch all?

Yes, I think if you review only a small amount of the literature on this topic you will find a constant theme and criticism relating to an excessively broad definition.

I would suggest, however, that you also look at the definition prior to the 2000 Act. That existed in various temporary legislation such as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, S. 28(1): "terrorism means the use of violence for political ends ..." You might argue that that was an even broader definition, amenable to all sorts of interpretations.

On the contrary it did require an act of violence. Under the current legislation an act of violence is not required - interfering with an electronic system is enough, S1(2)(e). It also required a political motive, now clearly removed. Section 1(5) is bit of a catch all little bugger as well. Let's say I donate money to a children's hospital in Gaza. There's a good chance it might run by Hamas, a proscribed organisation. Am I caught by the terrorism legislation? Probably yes.

I think the biggest problem arises when you import this excessively broad definition into other legislation and give the SSHD powers to act based on a suspicion that a person is, or has been, or might in the future become involved in terrorism. Generally the criminal law holds someone to account for what they have done in the past. Broad counter-terrorism laws allow the executive, often without substantial proof, to act against a person on the basis of what they might do in the future.

Regardless of the breadth of the definition, however, the question might also be; is the legislation effective? It might "catch all" but if it catches terrorists then surely it's doing its job. International law places a positive obligation on States to counter terrorism and protect life. Better that we do that with broad, sweeping legislation which allows the state to act, than with narrow and restrictive law which hinders it from taking action against those who would seek to harm its citizens?

Strike the correct balance between countering terror, protecting citizens and respecting human rights at the same time, and you'll definitively have a successful career ahead of you ! !

I have looked at the definition contained within the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It was interesting to see how the definition has evolved, especially considering political motives.

Your criticism of s1(5) is one that I had not previously considered but having done further reading, I agree with your viewpoint.

I am interested to hear more on the argument that you have presented when considering the powers given to the SSHD, for example.

I entirely agree with your argument that if the legislation is working then it should not be considered as too broad. Although, I suggest that it may be necessary for some checks and balances to ensure there is not an abuse of such broad powers. Do you agree?

I have also considered the EU's framework decision in my analysis. It is important to see where the UK has exceeded the framework in some areas, but lacked in others.