Terrorism Act 2000

Definition of terrorism

Terrorism is defined, in the first section of the Act, as follows:

Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.

Prior to this, terrorism was defined in an Act as a footnote, such as Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 (c. 18) section 2(2):

"acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.

and Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 4) section 20(1):

In this Act "terrorism" means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.

In the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, the criminal offences referred to as terrorism are provided as an exhaustive list of over 70 items.

This move to establish a sound definition of terrorism in the law made it possible to build an entirely new set of police and investigatory powers into incidents of this kind, beyond what they could do for ordinary violent offences.

The inclusion in its definition of the phrase or threat mirrors the common law, as it was codified with respect to written words, in 27 Geo II c.15 (1754) and again in 4 Geo IV c.54 (1823).

Proscribed groups

As in previous Terrorism Acts, such as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, the Home Secretary had the power to maintain a list of "proscribed groups" that they believe are "concerned in terrorism". The act of being a member of, or supporting such a group, or wearing an item of clothing such as "to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation" is sufficient to be prosecuted for a terrorist offence.

International groups

The secretary of state's list proscribes a number of international organisations, the majority because of accusations connected with Islamic fundamentalism. The list as of February 2017 comprises 71 groups:

Mujaheddin e Khalq (MeK) was removed from the list of proscribed organisations in June 2008, as a result of judgements of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission and the Court of Appeal. The International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) was deproscribed in March 2016.

Under the act aliases of organizations can be added. For example, Al Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, London School of Sharia and Muslims Against Crusades were added in January 2010 and November 2011 as alternative names for Al Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect (also deemed to be the same organization) and in June 2014 Need4Khilafah, the Shariah Project and the Islamic Dawah Association were added to this list. An alias does not have to be added to the list for prosecution to be possible, provided it can be demonstrated that for all intents and purposes the organization is a proscribed one, and that the person involved has committed a proscribed act.

Domestic groups

A number of armed paramilitary groups are also proscribed because of involvement in the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The list as of December 2016 is:

In addition, the Neo-Nazi group National Action was added to the list in December 2016 following the murder of Jo Cox.

Section 41 (arrest without warrant)

Section 41 of the Act provided the police with the power to arrest and detain a person without charge for up to 48 hours if they were suspected of being a terrorist. This period of detention could be extended to up to seven days if the police can persuade a judge that it is necessary for further questioning.

This was a break from ordinary criminal law where suspects had to be charged within 24 hours of detention or be released. This period was later extended to 14 days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006.

Section 44

The most commonly encountered use of the Act was outlined in Section 44 which enables the police and the Home Secretary to define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize "articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism". Unlike other stop and search powers that the police can use, Section 44 does not require the police to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed, to search an individual.

In 2009, over 100,000 searches were conducted under the powers, but none of these resulted in people being arrested for terrorism offences. 504 were arrested for other offences.

In January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. It held that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated in the case of two people stopped in 2003 outside the ExCeL convention centre in London, which at the time was hosting a military equipment exhibition. The Court found the powers were "not sufficiently circumscribed" and lacked "adequate legal safeguards against abuse", over-ruling a 2003 High Court judgement upheld at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

Pending new powers in the Protection of Freedoms Bill (see Section 47A), Theresa May made a remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998 (the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011), which had the effect of repealing sections 44, 45, 46 and most of section 47.

Section 47A

As discussed above, since 18 March 2011 section 44 has been treated as repealed. It has been replaced with a new section 47A by the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011. Under the new provisions, searches can only be carried out as follows:

A senior police officer must make an authorisation in relation to a specified area or place. He can make such an authorisation only if he:

When such an authorisation is in force, any constable in uniform can, in the specified area or place, stop:

But the power to search can only be used for the purpose of discovering whether there is anything which may constitute evidence that:

The power conferred by such an authorisation may be exercised whether or not the constable reasonably suspects that there is such evidence. A person or vehicle searched under this power may be detained for as long as is reasonably required. A person who is searched may be required to remove their headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves, but nothing else whilst in public. If requested, a form must be given stating that the person/vehicle was stopped.

An authorisation can be given by an Assistant Chief Constable (or if the area is in the Metropolitan Police District of the City of London, then a Commander of the Metropolitan Police/City of London Police). Authorisations can also be given by the Assistant Chief Constables of:

If given verbally, authorisations must be confirmed in writing as soon as reasonably practicable, and in either case must be notified to the Home Office as soon as reasonably practicable. Authorisations must be confirmed by the Home Office within 48 hours of their being made, or they expire automatically. If confirmed, an authorisation can only last for up to 14 days. An authorisation can be cancelled at any time, or restricted in respect of the time it ends or the area which it covers, but it cannot be expanded. New authorisations can be made regardless of whether previous authorisations exist, or have been cancelled or have expired.

Section 58 – Collection of information

This section creates the offence, liable to a prison term of up to ten years, to collect or possess "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Sections 57–58: Possession offences: Section 57 is dealing with possessing articles for the purpose of terrorist acts. Section 58 is dealing with collecting or holding information that is of a kind likely to be useful to those involved in acts of terrorism. Section 57 includes a specific intention, section 58 does not.

Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, 23, from Wolverhampton, is believed to be the first person convicted of collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist, including the al-Qaeda publication Inspire.

Part 7

Part 7, comprising sections 65 to 113, contained particular provisions applying to Northern Ireland, that were to require parliamentary approval on an annual basis by means of a statutory instrument to continue in force. The part replaced previous provisions under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

Part 7 was succeeded by the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006, which in turn was succeeded by the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007.

Section 75 (Trial without jury)

Section 75 provided for bench trials instead of jury trials in Northern Ireland for scheduled offences, continuing the system of Diplock courts first established in 1973.

Stop and search, arrest and conviction rates

Between July and December 2007, the BBC reported that more than 14,000 people and vehicles had been stopped and searched by British Transport Police in Scotland. In 2008 the Metropolitan Police conducted 175,000 searches using Section 44, these included over 2313 children (aged 15 or under), of whom 58 were aged under 10.

Up to early 2004 around 500 people are believed to have been arrested under the Act; seven people had been charged. By October 2005 these figures had risen to 750 arrested with 22 convictions; the then current Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said "the statistics illustrate the difficulty of getting evidence to bring prosecution".

Figures released by the Home Office on 5 March 2007 show that 1,126 people were arrested under the Act between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2006. Of the total 1,166 people arrested under the Act or during related police investigations, 221 were charged with terrorism offences, and 40 convicted.

Noted arrests under Section 58 include Abu Bakr Mansha in December 2005, and the eight suspects involved in the 2004 financial buildings plot.

Reactions and analysis

In his comprehensive commentary on this Act and other anti-terrorism legislation, Professor Clive Walker of the University of Leeds comments:

"The Terrorism Act 2000 represents a worthwhile attempt to fulfil the role of a modern code against terrorism, though it fails to meet the desired standards in all respects. There are aspects where rights are probably breached, and its mechanisms to ensure democratic accountability and constitutionalism are even more deficient, as discussed in the section on 'Scrutiny' earlier in this chapter. It is also a sobering thought, proffered by the Home Affairs Committee, that the result is that ‘This country has more anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any other developed democracy.’ (Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001 (2001–02 HC 351) para.1). But at least that result initially flowed from a solemnly studied and carefully constructed legislative exercise."

The Terrorism Act 2000 is subject to annual review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. The Independent Reviewer's reports are submitted to the Home Secretary, laid before Parliament and published in full.

Alleged abuses

The laws have been criticised for allowing excessive police powers leaving scope for abuse. There have been various cases in which the laws have been used in scenarios criticised for being unrelated to fighting terrorism. Critics allege there is systematic abuse of the act against protesters.

Many instances have been reported in the media of innocent people who have been stopped and searched under section 44 of the Act. According to Home Office guidelines, police are required to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is acting as a terrorist. Critics of the Act claim that, in practice, police are using Section 44 emergency powers as "an additional tool in their day-to-day policing kit" to stop and search innocent citizens without reasonable grounds, going beyond the original intention of Parliament.

One of the issues arising from the Section 44 authorisations has been the use of the Act to detain lawful protestors or other people who are in the vicinity of demonstrations. Critics claim the Act gives police extended powers to deter or prevent peaceful protest.

Problematic use of Section 44 powers has not been restricted to political protestors; according to reports, journalists, amateur and professional photographers, trainspotters, politicians and children have been subject to stop and search under suspicion of being involved in terrorist activities while engaged in lawful acts such as photography. The taking of photographs in public spaces is permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (freedom of panorama), and while the Terrorism Act does not prohibit such activity, critics have alleged misuse of the powers of the Act to prevent lawful photography. (Further restrictions on photography have, however, been introduced with the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008)

Disquiet among the police and government about Section 44 increased; in an interview on BBC Radio 4's programme iPM, Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, remarked that the Act was not clear about police and that a lack of training for police officers had led to some officers being "overzealous" in implementing the Act. Vernon Coaker, the Minister of State stated on 20 April 2009 that, "counter-terrorism measures should only be used for counter-terrorism purposes".

In December 2009, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) issued a warning to police chiefs to stop using Section 44 powers to target photographers, whether tourists, amateurs or professionals, stating that the practice was "unacceptable". As of 2011, the Section 44 powers effectively no longer exist (see above), and police must "reasonably" suspect an individual of involvement in terrorism before intervening.

General

Section 44

Amendments

Section 6 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 made amendments to the act.