|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Terrorism Act 2000 - commentaryby James Hammerton |
 |
|
|
The UK's Terrorism Act 2000 was passed and received Royal Assent in the summer of 2000. It will be law by spring 2001. You can find it online at the HMSO website. This legislation marks a serious assault on civil liberties, using an extremely broad definition of terrorism that would cover those who voice support for armed resistance against repressive regimes, those who damage property in protest at things they oppose (e.g. anti-roads protestors digging tunnels, anti-GM crops protestors destroying GM crops) or even those who organise mass faxing as a form of protest against governments. It gives the Home Secretary the power to outlaw an organisation (without having to prove a case against it in court) he believes may be concerned in terrorism. It also gives the police powers to search or arrest people without warrant merely on suspicion of being a terrorist, creates various offences where the burden of proof may be on the defendant to prove their innocence and even makes it an offence to wear clothing that makes the authorities suspicious you may be a member or supporter or a proscribed organisation. The index and introduction below gives a quick summary of the main problems with this bill, and provides links to full discussion of these problems later in this document. There is also a links section to related material.
Index and introductionThis bill is worrying on several grounds:
 involve serious violence
against a person,cause serious damage
to property, endangers a person’s
life (other than the person committing the act),create a serious risk
to the health or safety of the publicor are designed to
interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system. On the face of it, protesters who destroy GM crops or dig tunnels on a site for a new road are causing serious damage to property in order to influence the government for a political purpose. Causing serious damage to property ought to be and is a crime, however to brand Swampy, Greenpeace et al as terrorists and subject them to anti-terrorist laws is quite another thing. A further point is that many offences and powers are defined with references to this definition. For example, sections 32 to 39 define the notion of a “terrorist investigation” and determine the powers of the police and the obligations of those under investigation. Given the wide definition of terrorism, the police could order a “terrorist investigation” of any organisation that endangers public safety or health or causes serious damage to property for any political purpose and to influence any government. Thus a nurses’ union could become the subject of a “terrorist investigation” due to a strike over pay that “endangers public health”, with attendant duties to not use their computers as it might “interfere with the investigation” (section 39) and not to inform anyone since it might prejudice the investigation (section 39). The police could order searches of the union offices (schedule 5) for any incriminating information and bank accounts to be frozen, and prevent the union from raising money to support the strike (section 15). Another possibility is that of an organisation that is campaigning against a repressive overseas government. It decides to do a “mass fax” of the government’s offices, thus “interfering with”, or even “seriously disrupting”, “an electronic system” that the government in question owns. Since the repressive government was about to sign an economically important deal with the UK, the UK government decides to accede to the repressive government’s request to do something about the protest in order to smooth the deal. Thus the campaigning organisation becomes the subject of a “terrorist
investigation” with similar consequences as in the previous scenario.
And its most respected and influential committee member, a director of a research
laboratory, is charged with “directing a terrorist organisation”(section
56) which carries a possible life sentence as punishment. Note that the activities
someone directs under this offence need not themselves be terrorist and it
does not |
|
| Schedule 2 lists the organisations proscribed when the Act was passed in Parliament. On February 28th 2001, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, submitted a further 21 groups for proscription, in a list to be ratified by parliament.[2] Note that the Home Secretary is not required to make a case against the organisation in court in order to proscribe it. The organisation does not get to defend itself against the proscription. It can only appeal against proscription after the fact (sections 4 to 7). Thus the Home Secretary can in effect criminalise the members and supporters of an organisation without even having to prove any wrong doing on their part. Recall how widely the definition of “terrorism” is drawn. An organisation that (the Home Secretary believes) engages in serious damage to property (Greenpeace tearing up GM crops?) could be proscribed under this. An organisation that “interferes with” an “electronic system”, e.g. organising a mass faxing of a government? (the mass faxing would risk overloading the faxes and prevent other faxes coming in), would also fall under this heading. An organisation that encourages such actions without engaging in them itself could be proscribed. And most vague of all an organisation that is somehow “concerned with” (organises rallies against?!) “terrorism” could be proscribed. If proscribed, membership and support for an organisation would become an offence punishable by upto 10 years in prison (see sections 11 and 12). Arranging a meeting to be addressed by a member or professed member of the proscribed organisation would be an offence (section 12) similarly punishable. Addressing a meeting with the aim of encouraging support for the organisation or its activities would also be an offence punishable by upto 10 years in prison. Wearing clothing or carrying an article that makes the authorities suspicious that you may be a member of the proscribed organisation (section 13) is also an offence, but punishable by 6 months in prison. The proscription mechanism marks a serious assault on freedom of association and freedom of expression. This might be justifiable for use against aggressive, armed organisations that engage in bombing, shooting or otherwise attacking civilians, e.g. paramilitary groups such as the IRA (currently these are the only proscribed groups). However, the definition of terrorism, in combination with the vague grounds
for proscription and its associated offences, could allow a UK government
to outlaw groups that no-one would seriously regard as terrorist, without
them even needing to have actually engaged in any violent actions, or even
any damage to property whatsoever. The group’s members and supporters
could then all be rounded up and jailed, and anyone who voices support for
the group or its activities could also be jailed. Even people who arrange
meetings with members of the organisation (a meeting being defined as a meeting
of 3 or more people) could be jailed.
These are breathtaking powers. On suspicion of being a terrorist (and remember how widely terrorism is defined here!), you can be arrested without warrant, stopped in the street and searched, or both. The police can obtain a warrant to enter a building and drag one of its occupants out on suspicion of being a terrorist, without any evidence needed and without the police being required to disclose the reasons for their suspicions. All they need to demonstrate is that there are grounds to believe the person they want is in the building. Consider how many things could be used to damage property. All that is necessary is for something you could be carrying to be regarded as evidence. The scope for abuse of these powers without any redress is immense. The
wide definition of terrorism, the vagueness of the definition, and the
11 (membership of a proscribed organisation), to varying degrees, require the defendant to prove they are innocent rather than the prosecution to prove that they are guilty. It should be noted however that Section 118 mitigates most of these reversals in that, if the defendant can adduce [1] evidence to raise an issue with respect to the matter, the court shall assume the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt it is not. However section 118 does not cover the offences in sections 11, 18 or 19. This means for example that if you are a member of a proscribed organisation (section 11), you have to prove that you joined before it was proscribed AND did not take part in any of its activities since proscription. I.e. you have to prove a negative! The effect of Section 118 is to almost but not quite remove the reversal of the burden of proof. If you make a credible claim about something as part of your defence that casts doubt on the matter at hand, then the court can assume the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not. In practice this means it is quite probable that a defendant with decent legal advice will be able to put the burden of proof back on to the prosecution with such matters. However it does require the defendant to mount a specific defence, where ideally the prosecution should be required to prove its case. For example, Section 57 (see below for the offence of possessing an article for terrorist purposes) allows the court to assume you were in possession of an article if it was found on any premisses at the same time as you, unless you can prove you did not know it was there or did not have control over it. Under section 118, if you can make a credible claim that you did not know it was there or that you had no control over it then the prosecution will have to prove otherwise for the court to make this assumption. However this does mean that if you were to remain silent about whether or not you knew the article was there (or the claim was not regarded as credible), the prosecution does not need any evidence that you did know it was there or that you were in control of it, in order for the court to assume you possessed it. Under these circumstances, the burden of proof is still reversed. |
Section 58 states that a person commits an offence if he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or he possesses a document or record containing information of this kind. If charged with this, a defence has to be provided (see Section 118) that the defendant's possession or collection of the information has a reasonable excuse behind it. Given the wide definition of “terrorism” and the possible categories of information that could be useful for “terrorism”, this law could be used to harass activists who might not have any intention of committing terrorist acts, who are not members of terrorist organisations and who do not condone terrorism, e.g. perfectly innocent activists. For example, all of the following information could be useful for terrorism
under the Act’s definition: names and addresses of MPs, businessmen or
organisations; details of security flaws in a major operating system such
as Windows or Linux; details of which chemicals can form explosive combinations;
information Anyone who has this sort of information could be harassed by use of this law.
Section 57 makes it an offence to possess an article in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the possession was for purposes connected to the instigation (a vague concept...), commission or preparation of terrorist acts. Bear in mind how widely defined “terrorist act” is for this and consider that it could cover possession of a computer and modem, or anything that could cause serious damage to property. Given the vagueness of the concept of "instigation" of an act and the wide definition of terrorism, this offence could cover possession of anything from a computer hooked to the internet (useful for interfering with or disrupting electronic systems or for downloading information of use to terrorists!) to a hammer (which is useful for causing damage to property). A computer or phone can be used to communicate with someone which could certainly be useful for "instigating" a terrorist act. If charged with this offence, the defendant has to provide a credible defence that his possession was not for such a purpose. He cannot just sit back and demand the prosecution to prove that he possessed it for a terrorist purpose. He must make a claim the court finds credible that he did not possess it for that purpose, a defence which the prosecution would then have to prove is not the case beyond reasonable doubt. However the main usefulness of such an offence to the authorities is that someone could be arrested on very vague grounds. Once arrested, they can be questioned and searched, and their effects gone through for further evidence. This means the police could use arrests for this offence in order to harass and gather information. Note the offence is not that you possessed the article with the intent to use it for a terrorist purpose, but that you possessed it in circumstances where the authorities suspect you might use it for a terrorist purpose.
In other words, if you wear or carry something that makes the authorities think you are a supporter of, for example, the IRA or the UVF, then they can bang you up for 6 months on the judgement of a magistrate, and impose a fine. Don’t wear t-shirts proclaiming either your support for or opposition to a united Ireland, lest you fall foul of this.
This would make it difficult for investigative journalists to investigate
terrorism and, given the wide definition of terrorism, again could be used
to harass
The scheduled offences include most of the offences defined in the Bill and such serious offences as murder, manslaughter or grevious bodily harm.
Someone organising a debate between a member of a proscribed organisation
and someone opposed to that organisation. Someone found guilty of this could face 10 years in prison!
Related links
Oppose the Terrorism Act 2000 page (It is worth reading the Activist's Guide to the Act on this site). Liberty's briefing on the Terrorism Bill end notes
|
| email feedback@magnacartaplus.org © magnacartaplus.org 2000, 4 September the address for this document ishttps://www.magnacartaplus.org/ https://www.magnacartaplus.org/bill/terrorism/index.htm 3800 words
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
