A late 20th century snapshot of terrorism in the UK reveals a recently ended IRA ceasefire in 1996, the deaths of two people as a result of the Canary Wharf bomb, 200 people injured in Manchester city centre and a recommendation from Lord Lloyd of Berwick regarding a permanent anti-terrorism law to replace temporary statutes applicable mainly to Northern Ireland.[1] The outcome was the Terrorism Act 2000, (TA 2000) with seven parts, sixteen schedules and 300 pages.[2] The TA 2000 was an amalgamation of much of the Northern Irish legislation but given a broader application.
Terrorism Act 2000
The TA 2000 adopted a very wide definition of terrorism, which focuses on both the motivations of terrorist conduct as well as its methods.[3] It includes not only violence against persons by “serious damage to property”.[4] It has been criticised for being “sweepingly broad and extraordinarily vague”.[5]Another controversial aspect of the TA 2000 was the authority of a senior police officer to authorise the use of blanket stop and searches within a specified geographical area under section 44 and renewable for up to 28 days.[6] There was no requirement for police to have grounds for suspecting terrorist activity; powers were to be used to search for articles connected with terrorism.[7] Evidence suggests that ethnic minorities were effected disproportionality by these powers. In the months that followed the 2005 London bombings there was a twelvefold increase in the stop and searches of black and Asian people in London, compared to a fivefold increase in white people.[8]
Powers under section 44 have since been repealed; however, powers to stop, examine and detain travellers by air and sea under Schedule 7 remain.[9] Section 47A was introduced to replace the former section 44 after section 44 was found to infringe the right to a private and family life under Article 8 ECHR[10][11] The TA 2000 also includes anomalies such a three months prison sentence for a breach of a police cordon around a package suspected of being terrorism-related[12] and a sentence of one month for a similar breach when the package is suspect but not terrorism-related.[13]
Terrorism Act 2006
Why was the Act introduced?
The Terrorism Act 2006 was introduced as a result of the London Bombings that took place in July 2005. The Act was considered to be a necessary response to the ‘extremism that motivated British citizens to engage in such horrific violence.’[12] It was apparent that something needed to be done to prevent future terrorist acts from occurring which and so it was deemed appropriate for the 2006 Act to be rushed through Parliament. It was said that the Act was simply a panic reaction to the London bombings which was not carefully thought through, resulting in a great deal of human rights conflictions.[13] It is evident that the Act was introduced primarily as a result of the London bombings, yet this was thought to be the necessary approach to take to prevent further acts of terrorism from being conducted.
Aims of the Act
The Act aimed to include more ‘socially sensitive measures to address the prevention and restriction of terror activities’[14] dealing primarily with preparatory acts of terrorism, training associated with terrorism and acts which encourage terrorism.[15] The provisions contained within the Act represent a new step forward in the UK’s ability to criminalise political action as well as any support for such action.[16] This was a welcoming development in the fight against terror as it ‘broadened the basis for proscribing organisations to include those that promote or encourage terrorism.’[17]
Changes to the Law
Part 1 of the Act created a number of new offences that were all intended to help the police prevent and tackle terrorism. Section 1 of the Act makes it an offence to publish a statement or cause another to publish a statement that ‘intends or is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or induced to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism.’ This section of the Act appears to undermine the right to ‘freedom of expression’ that is contained within Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1951, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. However, this is considered necessary in the interests of national security.
Still, the scope of this section appears to catch those individuals seeking to achieve political freedom as opposed to being a terrorist.[18] In applying this section, however, the courts will be required to consider whether it is proportionate in pursuing a legitimate aim as identified in Piermont v France.[19] Here, it was held that; ‘a fair balance was not struck between, on the one hand, the public interest requiring the prevention of disorder and the upholding of territorial integrity and, on the other, the applicants freedom of expression.’[20] The courts will,, thus be required to strike a balance between the two competing interests and consider whether the enforcement of section 1 is necessary for the protection of national security.
Section 2 of the Act makes it an offence to disseminate any publication that would be likely to encourage terrorism, whilst sections 5 and 6 make the preparation of terrorism or terrorist training a criminal offence as exemplified in R v Gul.[21] The Act has essentially ‘made the glorification of terrorism a criminal offence’[22] and does not tend to focus on the issue of intent. Whether this makes the UK a safer place is arguable, though it has certainly extended previous counter-terrorism legislation and provided UK law enforcement agencies with greater powers to counter the threat of terrorism.[23] The Act amends the Terrorism Act 2000 by making various changes to the pre-existing legislative provisions, whilst also extending the powers available to the Secretary of State with regards to proscription and extending police investigatory powers.[24]
Since the Act was introduced the Crown Prosecution Service have prosecuted various offences under the Act ranging from preparing for terrorism (section 5), training for terrorism (section 6), dissemination of terrorist publications (section 2), possessing information relating to terrorism such as possessing manuals for the creation of explosives (sections 57 and 58) and fundraising for terrorism (sections 15-17).[25] For example in R v Iqbal (Khuram Shazad)[26] the defendant was charged with the dissemination of terrorist publications contrary to section 2 and in R v Dart[27] the defendant was found guilty for engaging in the preparation of terrorism.
Part 2 of the Act also contains miscellaneous provisions to extend the powers of UK enforcement agencies even further. It has been said that one of the most notable changes that were made under this Part of the Act was the extension of police powers to detain terrorist suspects. Such detention can now take place for a period of seven days unless a shorter period (or longer period up to a maximum of 14 days) is deemed to be appropriate by a judicial authority.[28] The provisions contained within the Act do appear rather extreme, yet this is what was considered necessary in response to the London bombings in 2005 and to combat any further acts of terrorism.
2026 update
The Terrorism Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006 both remain central parts of the UK’s counter-terrorism framework. However, this summary should be read alongside later legislation, particularly the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, which introduced further changes to terrorism offences, border powers and sentencing. In addition, the former section 44 stop-and-search regime under the Terrorism Act 2000 has long since been repealed and replaced by the more limited section 47A power. The current maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects is 14 days, following later amendment by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The article therefore remains broadly useful as an account of the 2000 and 2006 Acts, but it does not by itself state the full modern position.
Bibliography
i. Cases
Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (Application no 4158/05)
R(Kurdistan Workers Party) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2002] EWHC 644
ii. Legislation
European Convention of Human Rights 1953
Terrorism Act 2000
Terrorism Act 2006
iii. Books/Articles
Alder, J., Constitutional and Administrative Law (Palgrave MacMillan, 2015)
Anderson, D. QC, Shielding the compass: how to fight terrorism without defeating the law (2013) 3 European Human Rights Law Review, 233-246
McKeever, D., The Human Rights Act and anti-terrorism in the UK: one great leap forward by Parliament, but are the courts able to slow the steady retreat that has followed (2010) Jan, Public Law, 110-139
Moeckli, D., Stop and Search Under the Terrorism Act 2000: A Comment on R(Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2007) 70(4) The Modern Law Review, 659-669,
iv. Online
Anderson, D. Report on the Operation in 2010 of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, July 2011, para.6.14.
[online] accessed 29th January 2016
v. Newspaper
Dodd,V. ‘Surge in Stop and Search of Asian People after July 7’, The Guardian 24 December 2005.
Footnotes
Introduction
[1]David Anderson QC, Shielding the compass: how to fight terrorism without defeating the law (2013) 3 European Human Rights Law Review, 233-246, p.233
[2] ibid p.234
Terrorism Act 2000
[3]David McKeever, The Human Rights Act and anti-terrorism in the UK: one great leap forward by Parliament, but are the courts able to slow the steady retreat that has followed (2010) Jan, Public Law, 110-139, p.115
[4] Section 1 Terrorism Act 2000
[5] Richards J in R(Kurdistan Workers Party) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2002] EWHC 644
[6]Daniel Moeckli, Stop and Search Under the Terrorism Act 2000: A Comment on R(Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2007) 70(4) The Modern Law Review, 659-669, p.659
[7] Section 45(1)(a) Terrorism Act 2000
[8] V. Dodd, ‘Surge in Stop and Search of Asian People after July 7’The Guardian 24 December 2005.
[9] Anderson, supra n.1, p.238
[10]Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (Application no 4158/05)
[11] European Convention of Human Rights 1953
[12] Section 3 Terrorism Act 2000
[13]D. Anderson, Report on the Operation in 2010 of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, July 2011, para.6.14. [online] accessed 29th January 2016
Terrorism Act 2006
[12] Kent Roach. The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism, (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 298
[13] Clive Walker. ‘Clamping down on Terrorism in the United Kingdom’ (2006) 4 JICJ 5, 1137
[14] UKREN. ‘Anti-Terrorism and Racism: The Impact of EU and UK Policy on Black and Minority Ethnic Communities’ (2007), UK Race & Europe, accessed 22 February 2016
[15] Jean-Claude Paye. Global War on Liberty (Telos-Press Publishing, 2007) 91
[16] Ibid
[17] Kristen Boon. Aziz Z Huq and Douglas C Lovelace. European Responses to Terrorist Radicalization (Oxford University Press, 2011) 73
[18] Paul J Buchanan. ‘Terrorists – and Freedom Fighters?’ (2004) AntiWar, accessed 21 February 2016
[19] (15773/89), (27 April, 1995)
[20] Council of Europe Directorate of Human Rights. Case Law Concerning Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 88, (Council of Europe, 2001) 49
[21] [2013[ UKSC 64
[22] Imran Awan. ‘The Dangers of Silencing Dissent’ (2008) 158 NLJ 623, 624
[23] Great Britain. Terrorism Act 2006: Chapter 11, explanatory notes (The Stationary Office, 2006) 6
[24] Ibid
[25] Crown Prosecution Service. ‘The Counter-Terrorism Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) accessed 22 February 2016
[26] [2014] EWCA Crim 2650
[27] [2014] EWCA Crim 2158
[28] Lee H Leigh. ‘The Terrorism Act 2006 – A Brief Analysis’ (2006) 170 JPN 20, 364
