15 Mar 2007

Today the Independent Reviewer Lord Carlile published his review of the definition of terrorism, finding that the current definition is ‘fit for purpose’.

The human rights group Liberty expressed bitter disappointment that such an imprecise definition of terrorism coupled with expansive new anti-terror powers could lead to grave injustices yet could also make successful prosecutions more difficult to obtain. 

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said:  
 
‘This year-long review is a bitter disappointment to those concerned with the integrity of anti-terror law. Asked to review a definition that fails to distinguish between anti-Mugabe dissent and Al Quaeda inspired terrorism, Lord Carlile’s answer: is “leave it to the Attorney General”. 

Contact:Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 383 1128  
 
Notes to editors: 
 
1. A copy of Liberty’s response to Lord Carlile’s Review of the definition of terrorism June 2006 can be found on the policy pages of Liberty's website. 
 
2. Liberty considers the review of the definition of terrorism to be of the utmost importance, especially given the growing range of broadly-defined criminal offences that use the definition and wide range of extraordinary powers that are triggered by it. It is vital that the definition of ‘terrorism’ is drawn as tightly as possible because actions which would normally fall within the realm of criminality will constitute a more serious offence, with graver punishment, if they fall within the definition of terrorism, while actions which would not normally constitute criminal behaviour will become criminal in a terrorism context: i.e. supporting a group is an offence if that group supports or encourages terrorist actions.  

3. During the passage of the Terrorism Act 2006 a strong consensus emerged that the existing definition of terrorism was too broad and unjustifiable in the context of the offence of the encouragement of terrorism. Liberty is concerned that the new offence of encouragement of terrorism does not require any intention to incite others to commit criminal acts. Given the breadth of the existing definition of terrorism this offence would criminalize calls to overthrow oppressive regimes.  
 
4. The current definition of terrorism includes not only violence against persons but violence against property. Liberty believes that attacks on property, whatever the motivation, should be subject to existing criminal law which is capable of dealing with even the most serious criminal damage appropriately.  
 
5. Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides the template definition of terrorism in domestic law. Below is an abridged version: 
1. (1) In this Act ‘terrorism’ means the use or threat of action where-
 
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
 
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
 
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
 
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
 
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
 
(b) involves serious damage to property,
 
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
 
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
 
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
 
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied …
 
(4) In this section-
 
(a) ‘action’ includes action outside the United Kingdom,
 
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
 
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
 
(d) ‘the government’ means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
 
(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.”