Commenting on the second reading of the Terrorism Bill, Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“The unintended consequences of the over-broad repressive measures in this bill extend way beyond the duration and extent of a terror threat. What more fertile recruitment ground for extremism could there be than innocent young men released without charge after 90 days internment?

“We are alarmed by rumours that the Government intends to rush the Terrorism Bill through the Committee of The Whole House next week whilst ignoring proposals to help law enforcement in their investigations.”

Liberty Press Office: 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128

Notes to editors:

Liberty’s concerns with the Terrorism Bill include:

• Proposals to create new offences of encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications are extremely broadly drafted. They do not require any intention to incite others to commit criminal acts. The Terrorism Act 2000 (TA) and existing common law means there is already very broad criminal law. Any difficulty in bringing prosecutions can be largely attributed to factors such as the self imposed ban on the admissibility of intercept evidence.

• Plans to allow three month detentions without charge will have a severe impact on community relations. This would allow for the equivalent of a six month custodial sentence. It is over twenty times the pre charge detention time limit for murder. If the police have genuine difficulties in gathering evidence we should look for more proportionate ways of dealing with the problem.

• Extension of the grounds for proscription under the Terrorism Act will criminalise membership or support of non-violent political parties. The implication of criminalising non-violent organisations on the basis of their opinions is incredibly dangerous for a democratic Government to consider.

Liberty’s suggestions to reduce investigative problems for police include:

• The bar on intercept evidence in criminal trials must be removed because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges.

• Review the way in which people that have already been charged can be re-interviewed and recharged as further evidence is uncovered. This will allow for a charge to be replaced at a later stage of proceedings with a more appropriate offence.

• A civil court can currently make an order requiring an encryption key to be handed over. Anyone failing to comply with such an order will be in contempt of court and can be detained in custody for a fixed period. This means they do not have to be under arrest with the custody clock running.

• Section 47 of PACE allows for people to be bailed to reappear back at a police station while the police continue investigations. Attaching bail conditions such as curfew, reporting, or the surrender of a passport to Section 47 could enable these powers to apply to terrorism cases. ENDS///