Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

Last updated

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Variant 1, 2022).svg
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title An Act to amend the Terrorism Act 2000; to make further provision about terrorism and security; to provide for the freezing of assets; to make provision about immigration and asylum; to amend or extend the criminal law and powers for preventing crime and enforcing that law; to make provision about the control of pathogens and toxins; to provide for the retention of communications data; to provide for implementation of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union; and for connected purposes.
Citation 2001 c. 24
Introduced by David Blunkett
Territorial extent United Kingdom
[except Parts 5 and 12 (not Scotland); section 100 (not Northern Ireland)]
British Overseas Territories (ss. 50–56)
Dates
Royal assent 14 December 2001
Commencement 14 December 2001 – 7 July 2002
Other legislation
Amended by 2002 c. 30; 2003 c. 44; 2005 c. 2; 2006 c. 11; 2006 c. 13
Relates to S.I. 2001/3644; 2002 c. 29; S.I. 2002/1822; 2003 c. 32; S.I. 2005/1071
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, formally introduced into Parliament on 19 November 2001, two months after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It received royal assent and came into force on 14 December 2001. Many of its measures are not specifically related to terrorism, and a Parliamentary committee was critical of the swift timetable for such a long bill including non-emergency measures. [1]

Contents

The Act was widely criticized, with one commentator describing it as "the most draconian legislation Parliament has passed in peacetime in over a century". [2] On 16 December 2004, the Law Lords ruled that Section 23 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 it remained in force. It has since been replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Part 1 (Terrorist property)

Sections 1–3, along with schedules 1 and 100, applied to the finances of suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations. They rewrote parts of the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to seizure of suspected terrorist assets.

Part 2 (Freezing orders)

This part re-enacted and widened provisions of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964, [3] which in themselves dated from the Defence (General) Regulations 1939. [4]

Usage against Iceland

In October 2008, prime minister Gordon Brown invoked this part of the Act within the Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 to freeze the British assets of Icelandic bank Landsbanki during the Icelandic financial crisis, [5] by virtue of the fact that the Treasury reasonably believed that "action to the detriment of the United Kingdom's economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons". [6]

Unless explicitly stated, the short title of an Act does not limit the powers expressed within it. The Act does not say "terrorism-related action to the detriment of the United Kingdom's economy". Indeed, the government had defeated attempts to restrict Part 2 to terrorism-related cases during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords. [7] The long title of the Act lists "to provide for the freezing of assets" as a separate item from "To amend the Terrorism Act 2000; to make further provision about terrorism and security".

Iceland's prime minister Geir Haarde protested against what he described "a terrorist law ... being applied against us", calling it "a completely unfriendly act". [8]

Part 3 (Disclosure of information)

This part gives new powers to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue (now merged into His Majesty's Revenue and Customs) to permit them to disclose information "for law enforcement purposes". It also clarifies the existing requirements to disclose information for criminal investigations, particularly in relation to confidential information held by public bodies.

Part 4 (Immigration and asylum)

Part 4 allowed for the Home Secretary to certify any non-British citizen whom he suspected to be a terrorist and detain them indefinitely, pending deportation, even when such a deportation would be prohibited. [9] The Law Lords ruled against the law in a case brought by nine of the detained suspected terrorists on 16 December 2004 (by issuing against it a declaration of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, as provided in the Human Rights Act 1998). The measure was effectively abolished the following March when it was up for review. [10] Its powers were replaced with "control orders", brought in by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Implementation

The Immigration Act 1971 allows for the deportation of those who are a threat to national security for cases where there is insufficient admissible evidence for prosecution; however, a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal v United Kingdom in 1996 ruled that deportation of persons to another country was not allowed if there were substantial grounds for believing that the person would be subjected to torture. As a result, the government argued that this provision was necessary to overcome this conjunction of legal and security problems, and allow indefinite detention without charge or trial.

Since this measure was known to step beyond the bounds of Article 5 of the ECHR, the government included section 30 [11] to allow for a derogation (an opt out), claiming that since there was a "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation" (just one interpretation of the War on Terror) which allowed it to do this. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission was to oversee the process.

The derogation order came into force on 13 November 2001, [12] [13] and was repealed on 8 April 2005. [14] Between those dates the government claimed that there existed in the United Kingdom a state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation, within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the ECHR.

This part was renewed by Parliament on 3 March 2003 without a vote, and on 3 March 2004 with a vote. [15] [16]

Cases

Between 2001 and 2003 sixteen foreign nationals had been detained and held using these powers at Belmarsh. Eight were detained in December 2001, one in February 2002, two in April 2002, one in October 2002, one in November 2002, two in January 2002 and one in October 2003. [17] One further individual has been certified but is detained under other powers. Of the total detained, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other fourteen remained in detention as of 18 November 2003. The Council of Europe reported in a document dated 23 July 2004 that according to information supplied to their delegation by the authorities, in March 2004, there were fourteen persons certified as suspected international terrorists and deprived of their liberty in the United Kingdom. Twelve of them were being detained exclusively under Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, of whom half since December 2001. [18]

Appeals

The Act did provide a process for appealing to a judicial tribunal against the Home Secretary's decision to detain in each case. However, the government had argued that a special appellate process was needed to deal with these appeals because of the possibility that much of the evidence or information upon which the Home Secretary's suspicions may be based was likely to be sensitive information of a confidential nature whose release to the person detained or the public might compromise intelligence methods, operatives, and other persons. Therefore, the process established by the ATCSA involved special rules of evidence which most notably permitted the exclusion of the detainees and their legal representatives from proceedings. In an attempt to ensure that their rights were safeguarded at these times, special security-vetted "special advocates" were appointed in the place of their legal representatives. However, there is some evidence that these special advocates experienced difficulties effectively protecting their interests, and two of the special advocates subsequently resigned from their positions following the December 2004 ruling of the House of Lords.

In October 2002 the Special Immigration Appeals Commission decided that the Home Secretary's derogation was lawful, and that there was indeed a "state of emergency threatening the life of the nation".

A series of legal challenges were made in respect of the powers and processes established under the ATCSA and on 16 December 2004, the Law Lords ruled that the powers of detention conferred by Part 4 of ATCSA were incompatible with the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court ruled by a majority of 8–1 that the purported derogation was not authorised by Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights since the measures taken could not rationally be held to be "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation", and were also discriminatory contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.

The ruling could be summed up as follows: [19]

The Court quashed the order derogating from the UK's obligations under the Convention, and issued a declaration pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that the provisions of the ATCSA which empowered the preventative detention of non-British suspected international terrorists were incompatible with the European Convention. The effect of such a declaration in British law is not to deprive the legislation of legal effect, and Parliament may, if it wishes, refuse to repeal or amend any provision declared to be incompatible. However the making of a declaration of incompatibility carries strong moral force, and creates considerable political pressure to address the incompatibility.

Replacement of Part 4

To this end Part 4 of the ATCSA was replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 in March 2005. This Act replaces detention in prison with "control orders" which allow for the imposition of an extensive and non-exhaustive set of conditions on the movements of the suspected person with restrictions approaching a form of house arrest.

Unlike Part 4 of the ATCSA, the powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 can be applied to British and non-British suspected terrorists alike. At the time of its enactment there was considerable debate as to the compatibility of this Act's provisions with domestic and international human rights laws.

Eleven control orders were issued on the night the act passed on 11 March 2005 against the terrorist suspects who were due to be released. By October of that year only three were still in force.

Part 5 (Racial hatred)

This part substitutes "racially aggravated" with "racially or religiously aggravated" in some parts of the criminal law.

Parts 6–8 (Weapons of mass destruction)

This part makes it illegal to deal in biological or chemical weapons, or set off a nuclear explosion. It also makes it illegal to disclose information "which might prejudice the security of any nuclear site or of any nuclear material".

Part 9 (Aircraft security)

This part allows for the Secretary of State to make new regulations, and for the detention of aircraft where there is suspicion of an act of violence against a person on the aircraft.

Part 10 (Police powers)

This part allows the police to forcefully obtain fingerprints and other identifying features from an individual to ascertain their identity, and for the Ministry of Defence Police to operate as police officers outside of their normal MOD property jurisdiction in relation to non-MOD crime in certain circumstances as defined by the statute. It also allows members of the British Transport Police to operate as police officers outside of their "natural jurisdiction" (mainly the railways) in certain circumstances as defined by the statute.

Part 11 (Retention of communications data)

This part creates wide powers for the Secretary of State to regulate telephone companies and internet providers to retain data for the purpose of national security. [20]

Part 12 (Bribery and corruption)

This part extends the laws against bribery to cases where "functions of the person who receives or is offered a reward have no connection with the United Kingdom and are carried out in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom". It extends the laws against corruption so as to make prosecutions possible for "act[s that] would, if done in the United Kingdom, constitute a corruption offence". The definitions of corruption offences are in Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 and Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.

The Serious Fraud Office conducted an investigation into the Al Yamamah contract on the back of this strengthened legislation from late 2003 until 14 December 2006 when it was suddenly discontinued.

Part 13 (Miscellaneous)

This part gives the Secretary of State the power to implement the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters section of the Maastricht Treaty.

Part 14 (Supplemental)

This part outlines the timetable for the review of the Act by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counterterrorism</span> Activity to defend against or prevent terrorist actions

Counterterrorism, also known as anti-terrorism, relates to the practices, military tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, law enforcement, businesses, and intelligence agencies use to combat or eliminate terrorism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2000</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Act 2000 is the first of a number of general Terrorism Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It superseded and repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland Act 1996. It also replaced parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. The powers it provides the police have been controversial, leading to noted cases of alleged abuse, and to legal challenges in British and European courts. The stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Act have been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Acts</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Acts were a series of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1974 to 1989 that conferred emergency powers upon police forces where they suspected terrorism.

Three anti-terrorism bills were enacted in the Australian Parliament in 2004 by the Howard Coalition government with the support of the Labor Opposition. These were the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004, the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004 and the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004 that the detention without trial of eight foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with European human rights laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in the United Kingdom</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in the United Kingdom

Human rights in the United Kingdom concern the fundamental rights in law of every person in the United Kingdom. An integral part of the UK constitution, human rights derive from common law, from statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, from membership of the Council of Europe, and from international law.

The Internal Security Act 1960 was a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. The legislation was enacted after the Federation of Malaya gained independence from Britain in 1957. The ISA allows for detention without trial or criminal charges under limited, legally defined circumstances. On 15 September 2011, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak said that this legislation will be repealed and replaced by two new laws. The ISA was replaced and repealed by the Security Offences Act 2012 which has been passed by Parliament and given the royal assent on 18 June 2012. The Act came into force on 31 July 2012.

Preventive detention is an imprisonment that is putatively justified for non-punitive purposes, most often to prevent further criminal acts.

<i>A v Secretary of State for the Home Department</i> UK human rights case

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 56 is a UK human rights case heard before the House of Lords. It held that the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners in Belmarsh without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is a superior court of record in the United Kingdom established by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 that deals with appeals from persons deported by the Home Secretary under various statutory powers, and usually related to matters of national security. SIAC also hears persons deprived of British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981 as amended by Section 4 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

<i>Anti-Terrorism Act</i> (Canada) Canadian law extending security measures to combat terrorism

The Canadian Anti-terrorism Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. It received Royal Assent on December 18, 2001, as Bill C-36. The "omnibus bill" extended the powers of government and institutions within the Canadian security establishment to respond to the threat of terrorism.

Anti-terrorism legislation are laws with the purpose of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.

From 2000 to 2015, the British Parliament passed a series of Terrorism Acts that were aimed at terrorism in general, rather than specifically focused on terrorism related to Northern Ireland. The timings were influenced by the September 11, 2001 attacks and 7 July London bombings, as well as the politics of the global War on Terrorism, according to the politicians who announce them as their response to a terrorism act.

A control order is an order made by the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom to restrict an individual's liberty for the purpose of "protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism". Its definition and power were provided by Parliament in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Control orders were also included in the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.

Administrative detention is arrest and detention of individuals by the state without trial. A number of jurisdictions claim that it is done for security reasons. Many countries claim to use administrative detention as a means to combat terrorism or rebellion, to control illegal immigration, or to otherwise protect the ruling regime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Security Act</span> Philippine law

The Human Security Act of 2007, officially designated as Republic Act No. 9372, was a Philippine law that took effect on July 20, 2007. The law, which was watered-down after opposition from some politicians and rights groups feared the legislation would endanger human rights, was aimed at tackling militants, particularly the Abu Sayyaf, in the southern Philippines.

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom are part of UK constitutional law and have a long and formative history. This is usually considered to have begun with Magna Carta of 1215, a landmark document in British constitutional history. Development of civil liberties advanced in common law and statute law in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably with the Bill of Rights 1689. During the 19th century, working-class people struggled to win the right to vote and join trade unions. Parliament responded with new legislation beginning with the Reform Act 1832. Attitudes towards suffrage and liberties progressed further in the aftermath of the first and second world wars. Since then, the United Kingdom's relationship to civil liberties has been mediated through its membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom, through Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the drafting of the Convention, which expresses a traditional civil libertarian theory. It became directly applicable in UK law with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency for an indefinite amount of time without a trial. The Human Rights Watch considers this practice as violating national and international laws, particularly human rights laws, although it remains in legislation in various liberal democracies.

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation is an independent person, appointed by the Home Secretary and by the Treasury for a renewable three-year term and tasked with reporting to the Home Secretary and to Parliament on the operation of counter-terrorism law in the UK.

A. and Others v United Kingdom is a human rights case decided by the European Court of Human Rights. It unanimously held that holding prisoners indefinitely under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Article 5.

References

  1. ↑ "House of Commons - Home Affairs - First Report". publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  2. ↑ Tomkins (2002) 'Legislating Against Terror: The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001' Public Law 205-20
  3. ↑ 1964 c. 60.
  4. ↑ SRO 1939/927.
  5. ↑ "Meltdown Iceland" (PDF). The Economist . p. 5. Retrieved 26 March 2020.
  6. ↑ "Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 - Section 4 - Power to make an order". OPSI. Archived from the original on 18 October 2008.
  7. ↑ House of Lords Debates 28 November 2001, cc. 348–59.
  8. ↑ Patrick Wintour and Audrey Gillan:Lost in Iceland: £1 billion from councils, charities and police The Guardian, October 10, 2008
  9. ↑ "Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001". Archived from the original on 13 July 2006. Retrieved 5 July 2006.
  10. ↑ "Terror detainees win Lords appeal". BBC News. 16 December 2004. Retrieved 25 April 2010.
  11. ↑ Section 30 Archived July 13, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  12. ↑ "The Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001". Archived from the original on 26 February 2007. Retrieved 5 July 2006.
  13. ↑ "The Human Rights Act 1998 (Amendment No. 2)Order 2001". Archived from the original on 25 October 2006. Retrieved 5 July 2006.
  14. ↑ "The Human Rights Act 1998 (Amendment) Order 2005". Archived from the original on 14 September 2006. Retrieved 5 July 2006.
  15. ↑ "Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism". TheyWorkForYou. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  16. ↑ "The Public Whip — Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 — Renewal of indefinite detention - 3 Mar 2004 at 19:50". www.publicwhip.org.uk. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  17. ↑ "Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (Detentions)". TheyWorkForYou. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  18. ↑ "European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)". www.coe.int. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  19. ↑ "House of Lords - A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)". publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  20. ↑ see Walker, Clive; Akdeniz, Yaman (2003). "Anti-terrorism laws and data retention: war is over?". Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. 54 (2): 159–182. doi: 10.53386/nilq.v54i2.737 .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.