Terrorism Act 2006

Last updated

Terrorism Act 2006 [1]
Act of Parliament
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (variant 1, 1952-2022).svg
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title An Act to make provision for and about offences relating to conduct carried out, or capable of being carried out, for purposes connected with terrorism; to amend enactments relating to terrorism; to amend the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and for connected purposes.
Citation 2006 c. 11
Territorial extent United Kingdom
Dates
Royal assent 30 March 2006
Status: Current legislation
History of passage through Parliament
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

the The Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11) 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. [2]

Contents

The act drew considerable media attention, not least because one of the key votes resulted in the first defeat of Tony Blair's government on the House of Commons floor

Early history

Home Secretary's letter

On 15 July, shortly after the London bombings, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke wrote to the spokesmen for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, David Davis and Mark Oaten respectively, to ask their views on proposed terrorism legislation, in an attempt to seek consensus. His letter made it clear that the proposals were already under consideration before the bombings. It first proposed new criminal offences to allow police and intelligence agencies to intervene before the precise details of a planned terrorist act are known.

The second proposal was to criminalise indirect incitement to commit terrorist acts, and would enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (Article 5). The third proposal was to criminalise the providing or receiving of terrorism training, again in line with the Council of Europe Convention (Article 7). Clarke followed up this letter with a statement in the House of Commons on 20 July.

Prime Minister's statement

On 5 August, Tony Blair made a statement at his regular monthly news conference which included a mention of the proposed legislation. He said:

"... there will be new anti-terrorism legislation in the Autumn. This will include an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism. The sort of remarks made in recent days should be covered by such laws. But this will also be applied to justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere, not just in the United Kingdom."

The statement "the sort of remarks made in recent days" was generally taken as a reference to Omar Bakri Muhammad who had received a great deal of publicity for his reaction to the London bombing. There had been other statements, made by a number of controversial figures, about the 11 September 2001 attacks and attacks on US and UK forces during the Iraqi insurgency. These figures also include Muslim clerics such as Abu Qutada and Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Home Secretary's second letter

On 15 September, Clarke published draft clauses of the intended bill in a further letter to David Davis and Mark Oaten, writing that he would like their comments on them. He also announced further proposals for the bill, including a power to proscribe groups that glorify terrorism, and one to tackle dissemination of "radical written material by extremist bookshops".

The draft clause 2 would make it illegal to publish a statement which "glorifies, exalts or celebrates the commission, preparation or instigation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism". This wording was criticised for being vague, and for potentially stifling legitimate debate about government policy and the causes of terrorism. The clause only covered terrorist events which occurred more than 20 years ago if they directly relate to current events; a list of events occurring more than 20 years ago which would be covered was to be prepared by the Home Office. This provision was criticised as entirely subjective, and giving the Home Office the right to decide who was a terrorist and who was a freedom fighter.

Provisions

Part 1 – Offences

This Part creates a series of new criminal offences intended to assist the police in tackling terrorism. They are:

The encouragement, training, and preparation offences are extraterritorial offences. So persons who engage in any of these activities outside the United Kingdom, commit an offence which is triable before the United Kingdom courts. The Act also extends the maximum length of imprisonment for 'possession for terrorist purposes' from 10 years to 15 years, and for threatening to damage a nuclear power station to life imprisonment. The proposal that only those who intended to incite terror could be prosecuted was defeated by two votes in the House of Commons (300–298)—this was reported at the time as 300–299, but the clerks of the house confirmed the list of Aye names (of which there are 298) to be accurate. [4] It has been pointed out that the Government's resistance to the inclusion of the requirement of intention is somewhat two-faced, given that the reason offered for creating the offence was the need to comply with Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism which expressly requires specific intent. [5]

For the penalties of other acts of terrorism see Terrorism Act 2000.

Part 2 – Miscellaneous provisions

This part deals with miscellaneous provisions. It gives wider power to the Home Secretary to proscribe terrorist groups and amends the law to allow the proscription to continue when the group changes its name. The most controversial portion in the act, relating to detention of terrorist suspects for questioning, was in sections 23 and 24. However, as originally introduced, the clauses made little change beyond allowing police officers of the rank of superintendent to authorise longer detention for terrorist suspects.

Other provisions in Part 2 give greater flexibility to search warrants by allowing them to cover other premises under the control of the same suspect, and by allowing searches where the possession of terrorist publications is suspected. The powers of the Intelligence services are extended and warrants to intercept communications are given more wide-ranging effect.

Section 25 – Expiry or renewal of extended maximum detention period

The following orders have been made under section 25(2):

Part 3 – Supplementary provisions

This Part, apart from routine matters, creates a review of the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Section 39 – Short title, commencement and extent

This section allows for the commencement of the Act.

The following orders have been made under this section:

Second reading debate

The principle of the bill was debated in the House of Commons on 26 October. In an opening speech which saw many interruptions and lasted 74 minutes, Charles Clarke asserted that there was no change in government policy which would remove the United Kingdom from Al-Qaeda's firing line: "Its nihilism means that our societies would cease to be a target only if we were to renounce all the values of freedom and liberty that we have fought to extend over so many years. Our only answer to this threat must be to contest and then to defeat it, and that is why we need this legislation." David Davis said that there were many aspects of the bill which he could support unequivocally, but went on to criticise some of the uses of recent anti-terrorism legislation on trivial matters such as Walter Wolfgang. He concluded by saying that the Conservatives would support the second reading, but could not promise to support the third reading if changes were not made.

Mark Oaten said that the Liberal Democrats could not support the bill in principle because it went further than the measures agreed between the three parties. He looked forward to re-establishing consensus in the committee stage. Labour MPs Paul Murphy (a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland), Tony Lloyd, and Richard Burden offered general support. John Denham, a former Home Office minister who resigned over Iraq, argued that the bill was too widely drawn and would be of marginal use in fighting terrorism. Conservatives Douglas Hogg and Richard Shepherd dissented from their party's line to oppose on civil liberties grounds. Labour MPs Michael Meacher and Robert Wareing also opposed.

In the event, the bill was given a second reading by 471 to 94. In support were 298 Labour MPs, 164 Conservatives, 8 members of the Democratic Unionist Party, and Mike Hancock of the Liberal Democrats. Opposed were 59 Liberal Democrats, 16 Labour MPs breaking the whip, 8 Conservative MPs breaking the whip, 4 Scottish National Party members, 3 Plaid Cymru members, the sole Ulster Unionist Party MP and Independent MPs Peter Law and Richard Taylor. The Conservative MP Boris Johnson voted in both lobbies. [6]

Extending the period of detention without charge

A government amendment to the bill, proposed on 9 November but rejected by the Commons, would have meant that suspects arrested under suspicion of having conducted, or being engaged in planning, terrorist crimes could be held for a period of 90 days before being charged with a crime. This was a considerable increase over the existing term permitted by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allowed for a maximum 14 days' detention before charges were laid; contrast also to the maximum of four days' detention without charge allowed in cases of murder, rape and complex fraud. [7]

Under the new scheme, detentions would be reviewed every seven days by a judge sitting in-camera, who would rule as to whether the ongoing detention was justified. The Government argued that, given the suicidal nature of the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and related groups, it was no longer prudent for investigators to wait while a conspiracy developed. Instead, they reasoned, it was necessary for police to arrest terrorist suspects immediately, while police enquiries were at a relatively immature stage. The proposed 90-day detention period was necessary, the Government argued, as forensic testing and questioning of the suspect could not be completed within the allotted fortnight.

At the Report stage the Commons rejected 90 days and voted through an amendment for 28 days' detention, thereby doubling the period allowed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The amendment was proposed by David Winnick MP. [8] This power to detain for 28 days was formally brought into force on 25 July 2006. [9] The 90-day limit was publicly advocated by Gordon Brown on 10 October 2006. [10]

Police advocacy of 90-day detention

The Government repeatedly made the point that they had been advised by the police that 90 days was a necessary term of detention to prevent terrorism:

Andy Hayman, Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police wrote to the Home Secretary on 6 October 2005 to express his view that 90 days was required. [11] The letter makes the following arguments:

Clarke repeated many of these points in his speech during the second reading of the bill. [12]

Michael Todd, Chief constable of Greater Manchester Police also publicly supported increased duration of detention: Tony Blair quoted him as saying: "The reality of the terrorism threat that we currently face is so horrendous in terms of the implications that we are having to intervene far earlier in the investigation than we ever would have during IRA campaigns ... because with mass casualty terrorism we cannot afford to take any chances." [13]

Todd also wrote to the press;

The Devon and Cornwall Constabulary wrote to MPs to express support for the measure. [16]

In addition Blair cited Sir Hugh Orde (Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland), [17] who expressed his disappointment at Parliament's eventual decision. [18]

Some Members of Parliament and the press criticised this public advocacy for policy from the police (the Liberal Democrat Adrian Sanders to name one); [16] there were comments in the House concerned about "the politicisation of the police force" (Today programme, 11 November 2005). Indeed, the newspapers of Friday 12 November covered this question extensively when it emerged that the police had been encouraged to make representations to MPs—about the bill within their jurisdictions. [19] Clarke sought to clarify the nature of these approaches made to Chief constables in a letter to The Telegraph on 12 November:

On 3 November, I suggested to the Association of Chief Police Officers that chief constables write to MPs in their areas, making themselves or a relevant senior officer available to MPs, of all parties, who wanted to know their local police attitude to these issues. I made clear that this should not be on a party political basis. [20]

Criticism of 90-day detention

Opponents of 90-day detention broadly argue that everyone has a right to liberty unless charged with a crime. Detention for 90 days without charge is seen as a retreat from habeas corpus . Many argue that the denial of such a fundamental right can never be justified, regardless of the threat posed by terrorism.

Critics, including former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard, argued that no suspected terrorists who were released under the 14-day regime were later incriminated by new evidence, meaning that the police had never practically needed longer than 14 days.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has likened the British government's detention of terrorist suspects without charge to South Africa under apartheid. Tutu told the BBC: "Ninety days for a South African is an awful déjà vu because we had in South Africa in the bad old days a 90-day detention law." [21]

The bill's opponents, who included the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and members of Blair's ruling Labour Party, compared the lengthy period of detention to the policy of internment which had been used in Northern Ireland during the 1970s, and which many observers held to have served to antagonise Northern Ireland's Republican community and thus helped Provisional Irish Republican Army recruitment.

The 90-day detention measure was also seen by many as an unfair and unjust extension of the police's powers, and extending the perceived scope of a "police state". Critics argued that Blair's government was pandering to public opinion, and freely doing the bidding of the police. Another argument against the 90-day measure was that the police and government were working closely together as senior Chief Constables wished to keep their jobs after the plans to cut the number of Constabularies in the United Kingdom from 39 down to around 12.

Public opinion

A YouGov poll was commissioned prior to the vote by Sky News to determine the public's view on an increased period of detention. The poll was reported to show 72% in favour of 90 days with 22% opposed; [22] however, some of those who viewed the full survey find this broad analysis controversial.[ clarification needed ] [23]

With the defeat of the '90-day' amendment Tony Blair referred to a "worrying gap" between the opinion of MPs and the public. [24]

Application of the 28-day detention limit

Prior to this act, the period which the police could detain terrorist suspects without bringing charges was 14 days. Since then, there have been several terrorist investigations where suspects have been arrested and held for more than 14 days without being informed of the offences of which they are suspect.

Many of the twenty-five 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot suspects were held for weeks after their arrest before being formally charged, but this period lasted for more than 14 days for only some of them, such as Mohammed Shamin Uddin.

Also, from 23 August to 21 September, Habib Ahmed of Manchester was held as part of the 2006 Cheetham Hill terrorism arrests for the full 28 days before being accused of making computer records of possible terror targets and undergoing a course of weapons training at a terror camp in Pakistan between April and June 2006.

Progress of the bill through Parliament

The bill was preceded by a meeting of the Home Affairs select committee, Counter Terrorism and Community Relations in the Aftermath of the London Bombings. [25] The bill received its first reading on 13 October 2005, [26] its second reading on 26 October [27] and the third on 10 November. [28] The Government defeat over the detention limit happened at the report stage on 9 November. Royal assent was given on 30 March 2006.

Political implications of the bill

Tony Blair personally argued for the bill, in its full form, in the strongest terms. In particular, he refused offers to compromise on a shorter period of detention, arguing that the 90-day figure was a direct recommendation of the police and that no lesser period would provide adequate protection.

Following the Government's defeat on the 90-day matter, and the adoption of an amendment setting the maximum at 28 days, Blair criticised parliament and particularly the Labour MPs who had rebelled, saying there was a "worrying gap between parts of Parliament and the reality of the terrorist threat and public opinion". [29] The defeat of the Government in this matter rekindled debate over whether Blair (who had already announced he would not seek a further term as PM) was a lame duck, no longer able to muster his party's support over contested issues.

The British media has expressed broad doubts that the Government's intended programme of legislation will now get through Parliament. Specifically; welfare reform (green paper), including cuts in incapacity benefit; a health white paper, to increase involvement of private companies in health provision; and an education bill, also designed to increase private sector involvement in provision. [30] [31]

Effects

In August 2015 the British Library declined to curate the Taliban Sources project, a large digital archive of Taliban-related documents, maps and newspapers—mostly material from the 1990s, the period they were in power in Afghanistan—because the library considered possession of some items in the archive could contravene the Terrorism Act (2006). [32] [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

<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">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.

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

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.

The 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London took place on 3 February 2006, in response to controversy surrounding the publication of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The extremist UK-based Islamist groups al Ghurabaa and The Saviour Sect staged a controversial protest march from London Central Mosque near Marylebone Station to the Danish Embassy near Knightsbridge Underground station.

The Anti-terrorism Act is an Act 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 of the 37th Canadian Parliament. 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 aimed at 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.

Babar Ahmad is a British Muslim of Pakistani descent who spent eight years in prison without trial in the United Kingdom from 2004 to 2012 fighting extradition to the United States. The US accused him of providing material support to terrorism via a website that he set up in the UK in 1996 to publish stories about the conflicts in Bosnia and Chechnya, but which in 2000–2001 allowed two articles to be posted on the site offering support to the then Taliban government in Afghanistan. The US accepted that the website was operated from the UK but claimed jurisdiction because one of the servers hosting the website was located in the US. He fought a public eight-year legal battle, from prison, to be tried in Britain but the British Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute" him.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mohammed Atif Siddique</span>

Mohammed Atif Siddique is a Scottish prisoner who was found guilty, but later cleared on appeal, of one of his convictions "collecting terrorist-related information, setting up websites...and circulating inflammatory terrorist publications", resulting in a sentence of eight years' imprisonment. His defence has consistently been that he was a curious 20-year-old youth, still living with his parents, who was "looking for answers on the internet". One of his convictions was quashed on appeal on 29 January 2010. He remains a convicted terrorist.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at the prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The most recent amendment of the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has made it possible for the Union Government to designate individuals as terrorists without following any formal judicial process. UAPA is also known as the "Anti-terror law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counter-Terrorism Act 2008</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 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.

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is New Zealand counter-terrorism legislation passed under the Clark-led Labour government. Enacted following the September 11 attacks in the United States, the Act was designed to better address contemporary terrorism issues, both domestically and abroad. Until May 2019, the Act had not been formally used in a prosecution; however there were several failed attempts by the Crown to do so. Many individuals and organisations have however been designated as "Terrorist entities" under the Act's provisions, in line with UN Security Council designations. The Act was amended in 2007. In May 2019, a charge of engaging in a terrorist act was laid against Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque attacks, under section 6A of the Act.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Investigation Agency</span> Federal investigation agency in India

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is a specialised counter-terrorism law enforcement agency in India. The agency is empowered to deal with the investigation of terror related crimes across states without special permission from the states under written proclamation from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The primary mandate of the National Investigation Agency is to investigate and prosecute offences that have national and cross-border implications, specifically focusing on terrorism, insurgency, and other related matters. It is empowered to investigate cases that involve threats to the sovereignty, security, and integrity of India. It has the authority to conduct searches, make seizures and arrests, as well as to collect evidence and maintain a database of terrorist organisations and their members.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015</span>

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015, is an anti-terrorism law that was passed by the Malaysian government on 7 April 2015. It enables the Malaysian authorities to detain terror suspects without trial for a period of two years. POTA also does not allow any judicial reviews of detentions. Instead, detentions will be reviewed by a special Prevention of Terrorism Board. The POTA bill has been criticised by opposition elements as a reincarnation of the former Internal Security Act, which was revoked in 2012. The passage of POTA coincided with the arrest of seventeen suspected militants who were involved in an alleged terror plot in the capital Kuala Lumpur.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incitement to terrorism</span> Category in some national legal systems

Incitement to terrorism is a category in some national legal systems which may criminalize direct encouragement of acts of violence or praise for proscribed terrorist organizations. It was also prohibited by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 in 2005.

References

  1. ↑ The citation of this Act by this short title is authorised by section 39(1) of this Act.
  2. ↑ Liberty 2005 (press release) Alarm as Terrorism Bill rushed through Parliament Archived 5 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ "Terrorism Act 2006".
  4. ↑ "Terrorism Bill — Clause 1 — Offence of Encouragement of Terrorism — "intends" — 2 Nov 2005 at 15:41 — The Public Whip".
  5. ↑ Adrian Hunt, "Criminal Prohibitions on Direct and Indirect Encouragement of Terrorism" (2007) Criminal Law Review. 441.
  6. ↑ "Terrorism Bill — Second Reading — 26 Oct 2005 at 18:45 — The Public Whip".
  7. ↑ Commons, The Committee Office, House of. "House of Commons - Home Affairs - Minutes of Evidence".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ↑ Summary of voting on amendment on Public Whip
  9. ↑ "The Terrorism Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2006".
  10. ↑ Press: 2006-72 Archived 17 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  11. ↑ "text of letter at Home Office website".[ permanent dead link ]
  12. ↑ "I will give way to my hon. Friend...: 26 Oct 2005: House of Commons debates - TheyWorkForYou".
  13. ↑ "Engagements: 9 Nov 2005: House of Commons debates". TheyWorkForYou. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
  14. ↑ Wintour, Patrick (7 November 2005). "Police support Blair on terror detentions". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  15. ↑ Asthana, Anushka (7 November 2005). "Who can we trust in the fight against terrorism". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 10 February 2008. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  16. 1 2 "Police contact MPs on Terror Bill". BBC News. 7 November 2005. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  17. ↑ "Point-by-point: Terror debate". BBC News. 9 November 2005. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  18. ↑ "News | the Scotsman". The Scotsman. Edinburgh.[ dead link ]
  19. ↑ "MPs probe police 'politicisation'". BBC News. 11 November 2005. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  20. ↑ Moore, Charles (12 November 2005). "The Daily Telegraph letters". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 20 July 2006.
  21. ↑ "Blair: Guantánamo is an anomaly", The Guardian , 17 February 2006.
  22. ↑ "YouGov - What the world thinks -" (PDF).
  23. ↑ "YouGov poll biased questions on 90 days detention without charge". Spy Blog. 7 November 2005. Archived from the original on 28 June 2006. Retrieved 24 June 2010.
  24. ↑ Tempest, Matthew (10 November 2005). "Blair defiant as pressure mounts". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  25. ↑ "Uncorrected Evidence 462". www.publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
  26. ↑ "ePolitix.com - Terrorism Act 2006". Archived from the original on 22 December 2007.
  27. ↑ "Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: 26 Oct 2005: House of Commons debates". TheyWorkForYou. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
  28. ↑ "Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill: 10 Nov 2005: House of Commons debates". TheyWorkForYou. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
  29. ↑ "Blair says MPs are out of touch". BBC News. 10 November 2005. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  30. ↑ Grice, Andrew (11 November 2005). "Cabinet rallies to defiant Blair as criticism mounts". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on 22 December 2007. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  31. ↑ "PM facing revolt over schools and health". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 22 December 2007. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  32. ↑ Network of Concerned Historians - Annual Report 2016.
  33. ↑ "Terror law prompts British Library to reject unique Taliban archive"

UK legislation

Parliamentary documents and debates timeline

Structure

The links in this section include only primary documents relating to the debate within Parliament, ordered chronologically and bulleted according to document type:

  • Text of the bill and Hansard transcriptions of debates.
    • Annotations.
      • Direct links to Hansard debate subsections.
        • Parliamentary briefing documents and other primary sources.

Documents

Glorification may be a magnificent word in the music of Handel and the pen of Blake or Milton. It has absolutely no place in criminal jurisdiction. We do not do Beatitudes at the Old Bailey. We do criminal justice based on statutes. [1]

Bob Marshall Andrews MP

For an appreciation of the parliamentary process see Act of Parliament – procedure – UK or, externally, Parliamentary Stages of a Government Bill (pdf) from the Commons Information Office.

Secondary sources

Media coverage

Opinion-editorial articles

Just prior to the 90-day detention vote
Just post 90-day detention vote
  • A failure of political judgment – The Guardian
    • "the wounding conclusion from Wednesday's defeat concerns Mr Blair's judgment, rather than his authority."
  • For country and conscience – The Times
    • "Tony Blair no longer commands. Teflon Tony is dead". The Prime Minister now needs to accept that this is the case and ponder how to adapt to a world where policies could regularly get stuck on the political pan."
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.