United
Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000: A Critical Review
By F. H. Fox
When
the UK Parliament passed the Terrorist
Act 2000 on July 20,2000[1] it was Intended to update the 1974
Security Act to give police and the military more sweeping legal powers to
investigate, apprehend, and if possible prevent terrorists from taking place
both on and off British soil. On its surface the legislation appears to be a
success. However, with less than three months left until the opening of the London 2012 Summer Olympic Games,
increased security measures now affect every British citizen, and every visitor
to the United Kingdom. As Home Secretary Theresa May pointed out, “The first
duty of government is to protect the public but that duty must never be used as
a reason to ride roughshod over our civil liberties.”[2] Consequently,
with the 2000 Terrorist Act now
twelve years old, it now seems
reasonable to review whether it is successful, or if it is overstepping
personal liberties and rights.
One
of the best ways to make that determination may be to examine recent news
events and court battles concerning the act. For example, when two German men
were arrested at the port of Dover in July 2011 just because they possessed
information that could be useful to terrorists the question then raised became,
when does having information that could be used for terrorism justify being
arrested for terrorism?[3]
Another
concern is giving money to charities. It is well known that Muslims frequently
give money to Muslim charities, however recent examples, such as the May 2012
raid and arrest of six men and one woman accused of funding overseas terrorism
demonstrate the practice may potentially put many people on terrorist watch
lists.[4]
In another example, this one in February, four people in Southern Wales were
also charged with similar offenses. However this time, the charge came from
Section 16 of the Terrorist Act 2000, which
specifically makes it an offense to possess money to be used for terrorism.[5]
However, the issue then becomes proving whether the cash is destined for either
terrorist activities or some other cause.
Another commonplace practice is
photography. In this case, taking pictures of police is may be illegal under
the Terrorist Act 2000. For example,
in 2011, photographs of police were found on taxi driver’s computer hard drive
and media storage devices. After questioning, the taxi driver admitted he also
posted the pictures on the webpage of a suspected radical group. In the United
States, the photographs and postings would probably be protected under the
First Amendment of the US Constitution as free speech, but in the UK, the act
was considered a minor terrorist act.[6]
In
another case, five men in Luton were arrested “on suspicion of the commission,
preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.” These arrests were not direct
terrorism acts, but instead considered part of an intelligence raid. Scotland
Yard called the arrests significant and stated the arrests were directly linked
to a previous intelligence raid on Sept 2, 2011. Even so, they Scotland Yard
stated there was no immediate threat to the United Kingdom.[7] In a similar
set of circumstances, just four days earlier, on April 20, 2012, police
arrested three men from Birmingham and Small Health at Heathrow Airport for
“possessing articles and documents with the intent to use them for terrorist
purposes overseas.” In both cases, these two groups of men were held under
authority of Section 57 of the Terrorism
Act 2000 which states, “A person commits an offense if he possesses an
article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his
possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or
instigation of an act of terrorism.”[8]
This is potentially problematic for all people because, given the right
circumstances, almost anything might be considered terrorist intelligence.
Additionally problematic is that the burden of proof is on the individual to
prove the articles confiscated were for personal use, not terrorist use.
In
2003, a major court challenge to the Terrorism
Act 2000 occurred after two journalists were stopped and searched by police
near an ongoing demonstration. As Penny Quinton, one of the two journalists
bringing forth the court challenge, pointed out, “There needs to be a balance
between police powers to ensure our safety [and] our rights to a private life.”
The European Court of Human rights agreed and concluded that Section 44 of the Terrorist Act 2000, also known as the Stop-and-search section, violated
Article 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights because there were not “adequate legal safeguards against
abuse.”[9]
However the House of Lords disagreed and in 2006, unanimously rejected a civil
rights group’s court challenge to the law. The Lords claimed the search was justified and proportionate
“in the light of the threat of terrorism.” Furthermore, Lord Bingham explained
it this way:
It is an old and cherished tradition of
our country that everyone should be free to go about their business in the
streets of the land, confident that they will not be stopped and searched by
the police unless suspected of having committed a criminal offense. So
jealously is this guarded that it has become a constitutional principle. But it
is not an absolute rule. ‘He said the antiterrorist provisions of the 2000 act
were among the exceptions to the rule.’[10]
Corinna
Ferguson, of the Liberty Group, called “Stop-and-search,” nothing more than “A
sloppy law,” and added it was a mess that Parliament needed to sort out.
However Security Minister David Hanson disagreed, saying, “Stop and search
under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in a package of
measures in the ongoing fight against terrorism.” The Metropolitan police, in a
public statement agreed and said the powers were “an important tactic in our
counterterrorism strategy.”[11]
However even the government’s own independent reviewer of anti-terror
legislations, Lord Carlile stated, “Section 44 had been ineffective in combating
terrorism, had caused community tensions and was used “arbitrarily and for
incorrect purposes.”[12]
If
true, then it may explain why the numbers of people being stopped and searched
by police under Section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act fell by 37% two years in a
row, and why the public outcry was so great that the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner ordered stop-and-searches to be scaled back. According to the BBC,
police face most of their criticism from London’s ethnic minorities. According
to the Home Office, between April and June 2009, only 0.6% of all searches
resulted in any arrest under Section 44. However people stopped and searched
for bona fide reasons listed under other legislation resulted in 11% of the
people being arrested. Even so, even the Metropolitan’s head of
counterterrorism, Assistant Commissioner John Yates agreed that, “This power is
seen as controversial and has the potential to have a negative impact,
particularly on minority communities.”[13] By Oct
13,2011, there was a 91% drop in the use of “Stop-and-search” powers.[14]
While Stop-and-search may be the most controversial section, another section
may be nearly as controversial.
Under
the Terrorism Act 2000, any group can
be considered an outlaw group if it, “unlawfully glorify the commission or
preparation of acts of terrorism.” While that sounds reasonable enough on the
surface, Islam4UK spokesperson Anjem Choudary disagreed in a BBC 4 radio
interview and stated, “What the people will see is if you don’t agree with the
government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly
dissipates and turns into dictatorship.” He claimed his own group was purely
ideological and got into trouble with the government because it attempted to
honor Muslims killed in the Afghan conflict. However Shadow home secretary
Chris Grayling had a different view and stated, “We cannot permit any group
which propagates the views of banned international preachers of hate and
organizes hate-filled public protests to operate in Britain.” Furthermore, Not
all Muslim groups disagreed with the government. The spokesman Shahid Mursaleen
for the Muslim campaign group Minhaj-ul-Quaran UK stated, “We support the ban
on the extremist groups but suggest banning extremist individuals too as they
will appear again with a different name. The Muslim Council of Britain member
Inayat Bunglawala feared the banned groups would somehow try to present
themselves as the government victims.[15]
One
last area of concern for critics is Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which, according to one Home Office spokesman,
“enables an examining officer to stop, search and examine a person at a port or
in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been
concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
The exercise of powers by the police is an operational matter for each force.”
However, Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth’s head of climate claimed he had
been stopped at the border at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel tunnel
while trying to travel to Copenhagen to protest on climate change. When he
pointed out to the officer that antiterrorist legislations did not apply to
environmentalist activists, the officer replied that terrorism “could mean a
lot of things.” Kitchen believed officials knew Child’s name and intentionally
targeted him for harassment and claimed, “The use of ant-terrorist legislation
like this is another example of political policing, of the government harassing
and intimidating people practicing their hard earned democratic rights.”[16]
While it has been shown the UK’s Terrorist Act 2000 has been
controversial, the next question is, has it worked? Home Office statistics
revealed in 2009 show of 1,471 terror suspects detained between September 2001
and April 2008, there were only 521 terrorism arrests with just 102 were
convicted of terror offenses. Additionally there were 340 terror related
arrests with 94 convicted on the terror related charges. “The Home Office
insisted that the proportion of terror charges to arrests was similar to other
offenses.” Additionally at the time of this 2009 report, there were 125
terrorist prisoners in England and Wales. Of those prisoners, 62% were UK
nationals and of those, 91% classified themselves as Muslim.
According
to the 2009 report and the Office of the National Coordinator of Terrorist
Investigations, once arrested, there were generally three different outcomes:
Released without being charged, Charged with a crime, or Alternative actions to
include a warning, transfer to immigration authorities, transfer to Northern
Ireland police service, or dealing with the offender under mental health
legislation.[17]
The
Home Office now provides quarterly reports on its home webpage on the numbers
of arrests, outcomes and stops and searches. The last one was updated March
22,2012. In 2011, 153 persons were arrested for terrorism related offenses in
the year ending September 30, 2011, but only 59 people had been charged. That
is an increase of twenty people arrested, when compared to previous the twelve
month cycle. However, since September 11, 2001, a total of 2,050 people had
been arrested for terrorism or terrorism related offenses with 740 charged. Of
the total arrested since 9-11, 1,105 people were eventually released without
being charged with anything. Interestingly enough, “Stop-and-searches,”
arguably the most controversial part of the Terrorism
Act 2000, fell from a high of 30,083 in July-Sep 2009 to 0 in Jul-Sep 2011
because, “On 8 July 2010 the majority of police forces that regularly
authorized the use of s44 ceased using the power to search persons following
the Home Secretary’s statement.” Instead, the power to search was transferred
to Section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Consequently, in the year ending Sep 30,2010 there were 46,045 searches, but
after the Home Secretary’s statement, the total searches dramatically fell the
following year to only forty-one. However, of those forty-one searches, there
was only one arrest.[18]
Making
a final judgment of whether the Terrorist Act 2000 has worked over the last
twelve years can only be done while also considering Secretary Theresa May’s
twin concerns of protecting the public while not allowing it to be a reason to
ride roughshod over civil liberties.[19] In that
respect, the quarterly reports put out by the Home Office seems to indicate its
efforts have been largely successful. As Lord Bingham explained, if people want
their liberties protected there will always be some cost, and that cost will be
allowing police to do their job, even if it means an innocent citizen may be
searched as part of an overall counterterrorism measure.[20]
Lastly,
the easiest way to judge if the Terrorism
Act 2000 has worked over the last twelve years is to look for instances and
evidence of any major terrorist attacks occurring in the UK since July 20,
2000. With the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it seems the Terrorism Act 2000 is indeed a success.
Even so, the successes of the past twelve years is no guarantee that no terror
attack will not succeed in the near future, now that the London 2012 Olympic Games are less than three months away.
Consequently, the Home Office is continuing to adjust to new types of terrorist
plots and attacks including and developing new techniques while maintaining
historically effective methods in their efforts to keep the UK safe from the
threat posed by terrorism.[21]
Bibliography:
Primary
Documents:
National Archives, Terrorism Act 2000: 2000 c.11, Table of Contents, London, UK,
Home Office Statical Bulletin Quarterly update
to September 2011: Great Britain, 22 March 2012,
HOSB 04/12, “Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent
legislation: Arrests, outcomes and stops and searches”
Home Office Webpage, “Counter-terrorism,” http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/
Newspapers:
BBC
News, “Rules on stop and search changed,” July 8,
2010,
BBC
News, “Two Germans arrested at Dover charged with
terrorism,” 26 July 2011,
BBC
News, “Seven arrested over terror funding,” May 1,
2012
BBC
News, Four arrests in south Wales over terror fund
allegations,”
BBC
News, “Photographs of PSNI officers ‘found on hard
drives,’ Jan 24, 2012,
BBC
News, “Five men arrested in Luton anti-terror raid,”
April 24, 2012,
BBC
News, “Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by
European court,” updated Jan 12, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8453878.stm
BBC
News, “Terrorism stop and search ‘valid,’” March 8,
2006,
BBC
News, “Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by
European court, updated Jan 12, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8453878.stm
BBC
News, “Anti-terror searches scaled down,” May
7,2009,
BBC
News, “91% decrease in use of terrorism
stop-and-search powers, Oct 13, 2011,
BBC
News, “Islam4uk Islamist group banned under terror
laws,” Jan 12, 2010,
BBC
News, “Terror arrest conviction rate 13%, May
13,2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8047477.stm
The
Telegraph, “Terrorism Act used to stop climate change
activist from traveling, May 9,2012, London,
UK,
[1]National
Archives, Terrorism Act 2000: 2000
c.11, Table of Contents, London, UK, http://www.legislation.gov.uk
[3]BBC News,
“Two Germans arrested at Dover charged with terrorism,” 26 July 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14301696
[4]BBC News,
“Seven arrested over terror funding,” May 1, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17907635
[5]BBC News,
Four arrests in south Wales over terror fund allegations,” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-16961533
[6]BBC News,
“Photographs of PSNI officers ‘found on hard drives,’ Jan 24, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16702340
[7]BBC News,
“Five men arrested in Luton anti-terror raid,” April 24, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17825583
[8]National
Archives, Terrorism Act 2000: 2000
c.11, Table of Contents, London, UK, http://www.legislation.gov.uk
[9]BBC News, “Stop-and-search
powers ruled illegal by European court,” updated Jan 12, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8453878.stm
[10]BBC News,
“Terrorism stop and search ‘valid,’” March 8, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4786456.stm
[11]BBC News,
“Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by European court, updated Jan 12, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8453878.stm
[13]BBC News,
“Anti-terror searches scaled down,” May 7,2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8038070.stm
[14]BBC News,
“91% decrease in use of terrorism stop-and-search powers, Oct 13, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15290176
[15]BBC News,
“Islam4uk Islamist group banned under terror laws,” Jan 12, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8453560.stm
[16]The Telegraph,
“Terrorism Act used to stop climate change activist from traveling, May 9,2012,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6329005/Terrorism-Act-used-to-stop-climate-change-activist-travelling.html
[17]BBC News,
“Terror arrest conviction rate 13%, May 13,2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8047477.stm
[18]Home
Office Statistical Bulletin Quarterly update to September 2011: Great Britain,
22 March 2012, HOSB 04/12, “Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act
2000 and subsequent legislation: Arrests, outcomes and stops and searches” http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/counter-terrorism-statistics/hosb0412/hosb0412?view=Binary
[20]BBC News,
“Terrorism stop and search ‘valid,’” March 8, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4786456.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment