Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

Last updated

Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 [1]
Act of Parliament
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Variant 1, 2022).svg
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title An Act to confer further powers to gather and share information for counter-terrorism and other purposes; to make further provision about the detention and questioning of terrorist suspects and the prosecution and punishment of terrorist offences; to impose notification requirements on persons convicted of such offences; to confer further powers to act against terrorist financing, money laundering and certain other activities; to provide for review of certain Treasury decisions and about evidence in, and other matters connected with, review proceedings; to amend the law relating to inquiries; to amend the definition of "terrorism"; to amend the enactments relating to terrorist offences, control orders and the forfeiture of terrorist cash; to provide for recovering the costs of policing at certain gas facilities; to amend provisions about the appointment of special advocates in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes. 9
Citation 2008 c. 28
Dates
Royal assent 26 November 2008
Status: Current legislation
History of passage through Parliament
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which increased police powers for the stated purpose of countering terrorism. The first reading of the bill was held in January 2008, and it received royal assent on 26 November 2008 following an episode of Parliamentary ping-pong on some of its most controversial issues. [2]

Contents

Provisions of the Act

The Act as passed contains various notable provisions: [3]

Photographs of police officers in public places

Section 76 (Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc.) came into force on 15 February 2009 [4] making it an offence to elicit, attempt to elicit, or publish information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" about: [5]

Any person found guilty faces 10 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. [5] It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action (for example, a newspaper feature on police brutality or corruption). [5]

There are exemptions for communications service providers, web caches and web hosting services. [6]

The protest outside New Scotland Yard, February 2009 S76 protest 1.jpg
The protest outside New Scotland Yard, February 2009

Journalists who feared that this law would be abused by the police to threaten the taking of photographs of their activities [7] [8] [9] staged a mass protest outside Scotland Yard in February 2009. [10] Gordon Brown reaffirmed that the police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places, and stated "the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place". [7] The act however does not lay out restrictions for the photography of Community Support Officers as they do not hold the office of Constable.

The Parliamentary debate on this law was limited because in earlier versions of the Bill the offence of eliciting or publishing information "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" only applied to people who were or had been members of Her Majesty's Forces, and not to the police. [11] This was also the case throughout the debate in the Standing Committee. [12]

An opposition amendment changing the phrase "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" with the words "with the intention that it is useful..." was withdrawn after the Minister explained that the clause merely restated earlier laws applying to the armed forces on which there was already case law [13] that made it more reasonable than it appeared. [12]

The law against eliciting or publishing information "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" was extended to encompass police constables in a raft of unscrutinized amendments [14] that passed into the Bill at the end of the debate when the Parliamentary timetable (which had been voted on earlier in the day) [15] expired.

When this clause was scrutinized in the House of Lords, [16] and in all subsequent debates, no reference was made to the extension of the law to include police constables.

A Parliamentary written question about the policy regarding police preventing members of the public from taking photographs in public places hasn't been answered. [17] But the Home Office issued a circular to the police in 2009 which reminds them that 'Legitimate journalistic activity (such as covering a demonstration for a newspaper) is likely to constitute such an excuse. Similarly an innocent tourist or other sight-seer taking a photograph of a police officer is likely to have a reasonable excuse.' [18]

Post-charge questioning

A number of measures were linked to the debate about extending the detention period for those arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000. [19] One of them was the introduction of questioning after charge under ss. 22 to 27. Such questioning was already exceptionally allowed under PACE Code C para.16 [20] in order: to prevent or minimise harm or loss to some other person, or the public; to clear up an ambiguity in a previous answer or statement; in the interests of justice for the detainee to have put to them, and have an opportunity to comment on, information concerning the offence which has come to light since they were charged or informed they might be prosecuted. But post-charge questioning rarely happens in practice. However, in order to give the police and prosecutors confidence that they do not have to wait until the end of the detention period to make a charge, the 2008 Act allows them to resume questioning after charge. This idea may be especially important if a charge is made under the Threshold Test under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, 2010, para.5. [21] These measures are not likely to have much impact since they involve dire problems of admissibility, given the circumstances of a pending trial which is meant to be controlled by a judge rather than the police. More likely, the police will seek adverse inferences from silence rather than responses to lengthy questioning. [22]

Abandoned provisions

42 day terrorist detention without charge

The highest profile provision in the Counter-Terrorism Bill was a measure to allow terrorist suspects to be detained by police in England and Wales for up to 42 days before being charged (formally told what law they were accused of breaking). This was a re-run of 90-day terrorist detention without charge debate that occurred in 2006 that was narrowly lost by a vote in Parliament.

The crunch vote [23] on the issue occurred on 11 June 2008 with a 36 Labour MP rebellion that would have defeated the government had the Democratic Unionist Party block, who normally vote with the Conservative Party, not voted for it. [24] Allegations of a political bribe for these votes [25] were denied. [26]

The day after the vote, the Conservative front bench Home Affairs spokesman, David Davis suddenly resigned from Parliament in protest and won re-election to his seat in by-election in which none of the other main parties stood a candidate.

On 13 October 2008 this measure was dropped from the Bill by a vote in the House of Lords. [27] [28]

Rather than reverse this defeat with another difficult vote in the House of Commons, the Government drafted a Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill that would stand "ready to be introduced if and when the need arises." [29]

Secret coroner's inquests

A provision in the Bill to give the Government powers to certify that a coroner's inquest should be held in secret without a jury in the interests of national security or foreign relations [30] raised enough opposition outside of Parliament [31] that the measure was also dropped. [32] These measures, however, reappeared in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arrest</span> Law enforcement action

An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody, usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged. An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system, sometimes it is also done after a court warrant for the arrest.

<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.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law enforcement in the United Kingdom</span> Police in the United Kingdom

Law enforcement in the United Kingdom is organised separately in each of the legal systems of the United Kingdom: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Most law enforcement duties are carried out by those who hold the office of police constable of a territorial police force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001</span> United Kingdom legislation

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The Act was the Labour Government's third attempt to bring in this offence: provisions were originally included as part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001, but were dropped after objections from the House of Lords. The measure was again brought forward as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in 2004-5, but was again dropped in order to get the body of that Bill passed before the 2005 general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative framework for the powers of police officers in England and Wales to combat crime, and provided codes of practice for the exercise of those powers. Part VI of PACE required the Home Secretary to issue Codes of Practice governing police powers. The aim of PACE is to establish a balance between the powers of the police in England and Wales and the rights and freedoms of the public. Equivalent provision is made for Northern Ireland by the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989 (SI 1989/1341). The equivalent in Scots Law is the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-Terrorism Act 2005</span> Counter-terrorism Act of the Parliament of Australia in 2005

The Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 (Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia, which is intended to hamper the activities of any potential terrorists in the country. The counter-terrorism law was passed on 6 December 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Act 2006 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 30 March 2006, after being introduced on 12 October 2005. The Act creates new offences related to terrorism, and amends existing ones. The Act was drafted in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and some of its terms have proven to be highly controversial. The government considered the act a necessary response to an unparalleled terrorist threat; it has encountered opposition from those who feel that it is an undue imposition on civil liberties, and could increase the terrorism risk.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act</span> Statute of the Parliament of Singapore

The Criminal Law Act 1955 is a Singapore statute that, among other things, allows the executive branch of the Government of Singapore to order that suspected criminals be detained without trial. It was introduced in 1955 during the colonial era and intended to be a temporary measure, but has since been renewed continuously; the Government has declined to make it permanent, claiming it "believe[s] that the Act should be explicitly extended by Parliament every five years". The validity of the Act was most recently extended in February 2018, and it will remain in force till October 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internal Security Act (Singapore)</span> Statute of the Parliament of Singapore

The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) of Singapore is a statute that grants the executive power to enforce preventive detention, prevent subversion, suppress organized violence against persons and property, and do other things incidental to the internal security of Singapore. The present Act was originally enacted by the Parliament of Malaysia as the Internal Security Act 1960, and extended to Singapore on 16 September 1963 when Singapore was a state of the Federation of Malaysia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coroners and Justice Act 2009</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It changed the law on coroners and criminal justice in England and Wales.

The powers of the police in England and Wales are defined largely by statute law, with the main sources of power being the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police Act 1996. This article covers the powers of police officers of territorial police forces only, but a police officer in one of the UK's special police forces can utilise extended jurisdiction powers outside of their normal jurisdiction in certain defined situations as set out in statute. In law, police powers are given to constables. All police officers in England and Wales are "constables" in law whatever their rank. Certain police powers are also available to a limited extent to police community support officers and other non warranted positions such as police civilian investigators or designated detention officers employed by some police forces even though they are not constables.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012</span>

The Security Offences Act 2012 is a controversial law supposedly "to provide for special measures relating to security offences for the purpose of maintaining public order and security and for connected matters". The Act is to replace the 1960 Internal Security Act (Malaysia). The Act was introduced by Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, approved in Parliament on 17 April 2012, given the Royal Assent on 18 June 2012 and Gazetted on 22 June 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019(c. 3) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It received Royal assent on 12 February 2019 and came into force on 12 April 2019.

References

  1. ↑ The citation of this act by this short title is authorised by section 102 of this act.
  2. ↑ "Counter-Terrorism Bill 2007-08". House of Commons.
  3. ↑ "Terror bill: What's left". BBC News. 14 October 2008. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  4. ↑ "The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2009".
  5. 1 2 3 "Counter-Terrorism Act 2008". opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
  6. ↑ "Counter-Terrorism Act 2008". opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
  7. 1 2 Laurent, Olivier (28 January 2009). "Jail for photographing police?". British Journal of Photography. Archived from the original on 27 March 2010. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
  8. ↑ Adetunji, Jo (12 February 2009). "Photographers fear they are target of new terror law". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  9. ↑ Vallee, Marc (12 February 2009). "Documenting dissent is under attack". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  10. ↑ "Is it a crime to take pictures?". BBC News. 16 February 2009. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  11. ↑ "Clause 69 - Offences relating to information about members of armed forces - Counter-Terrorism Bill". 24 January 2009.
  12. 1 2 "Public Bill Committee - Counter-Terrorism Bill - 13th Sitting". 15 May 2008.
  13. ↑ "R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185; [2008] WLR (D) 47 (Appeal Court)". 13 February 2008. Archived from the original on 5 April 2009.
  14. ↑ "Clause 71 - offences relating to information about members of armed forces". 10 June 2008.
  15. ↑ "Counter-Terrorism Bill - Timetable". The Public Whip. 10 June 2008.
  16. ↑ Baroness Falkner of Margravine (21 October 2008). "Counter-Terrorism Bill - Committee 4th sitting".
  17. ↑ Bob Spink MP (26 November 2008). "Photography: Public Places".
  18. ↑ "Home Office circular 012 / 2009". homeoffice.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 29 March 2010. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
  19. ↑ "Evidence from Professor Clive Walker to the Joint Committee on Human Rights".
  20. ↑ "Police" (PDF). police.homeoffice.gov.uk. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 December 2009. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
  21. ↑ "The Code for Crown Prosecutors" (PDF). cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
  22. ↑ See also Walker, C., 'Post-charge questioning of suspects' [2008] Criminal Law Review 509-524
  23. ↑ "Brown wins crunch vote on 42 days". BBC. 11 June 2008. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  24. ↑ "Counter-Terrorism Bill - Extension of period of detention to 42 days - Process". The Public Whip. 11 June 2008.
  25. ↑ Leppard, David (1 June 2008). "Gordon Brown 'bribes' Unionists to back 42-day terror vote". The Times. London. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  26. ↑ "No deals on 42 days, says Brown". BBC. 12 June 2008. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  27. ↑ "Peers throw out 42-day detention". BBC. 13 October 2008. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
  28. ↑ "Counter-Terrorism Bill - No extension of period of detention beyond 28 days". 13 October 2008.
  29. ↑ Jaqui Smith MP (13 October 2008). "Counter-Terrorism Bill".
  30. ↑ "Clause 64 - Certificate requiring inquest to be held without a jury - Counter Terrorism Bill". 24 January 2008.
  31. ↑ Gibb, Frances; Coates, Sam (12 August 2008). "Uproar at plan to hold inquests in secret". The Times. London. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  32. ↑ Watt, Nicholas (15 October 2008). "Government abandons secret inquests in terror bill". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  33. ↑ "Secret inquest plans brought back". BBC. 14 January 2009. Retrieved 2 January 2010.
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.