Fighting Terrorism – the Unprincipled Approach: the UK, the War on Terror and Criminal Law

  • Marianne Wade


Few would deny that murder, bodily harm, and the destruction of property are properly the subject of criminal law. Offences bringing such behaviour within the ambit of criminal law are core features of every criminal code across Europe. It would appear rational then that such offences when perpetrated or planned on a large scale – usually central to any definition of what terrorist offences aim to punish for1 – should be subject to the strong arm of the law on an equally massive scale. Within the continental European context, it is impossible to imagine anyone denying the appropriateness of dealing with terrorism via the criminal law. Although there is rightfully discussion surrounding the definition of terrorism2 and (where related offences are formulated too widely) controversy whether all forms of behaviour covered by terrorist-related offences are appropriately included (being that they are thus included in this emotive area of the law which aims to punish the most heinous of crimes), prima facia it seems absurd for anyone to seriously deny that acts of terrorism must primarily concern justice systems as a subject of criminal law. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases, one might question the need for any additional “special” criminalising law for terrorism; only rarely does some form of behaviour associated with it not fall within the traditional ambit of criminal law.3


Criminal Justice Criminal Justice System Criminal Proceeding Criminal Procedure Control Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. ARA Introduction to the Asset Recovery Agency. Available at
  2. BBC (2008). Interview with Lord Woolf BBC. Breakfast TV, 1st September.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Beckman, J. (2007) Comparative Legal approaches to Homeland Security and Anti-Terrorism. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, I. (2005). Speech at Urban Summit Conference. Available online under…general_information/cmsr_s_urban_age_summit_speech
  6. Braithwaite, J. (2000). The New Regulatory State and the Transformation of Criminology. The British Journal of Criminology, 40/2, 222–238.Google Scholar
  7. Chadwick, E. (1997) Terrorism and the Law: Historical Contexts, Contemporary Dilemmas and the End(s) of Democracy in Crime, Law and Social Change, 26, 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choudhury, T. Victims of Law? Muslim Communities across Europe (this volume).Google Scholar
  9. Clark, D. (2004) Bevan & Lidstone’s The Investigation of Crime. 3rd edition. London et al.: LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar
  10. Darbyshire, P. (2008) England and Wales in Vogler, R. and Huber, B. (eds.) Criminal Procedure in Europe. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  11. Davenport, A. and Baauw, P. (1995) Police Detention in the UK and in the Netherlands in Fennell, P. and Harding, C. (eds.) Criminal Justice in Europe, 251–264. Oxford et al.: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  12. Dodd, V. (2008) Court Criticises more Anti-Terror Legislation. The Guardian, 25 April.Google Scholar
  13. Duff, A. Criminal Law in the Stanford University Encyclopaedia of PhilosophyGoogle Scholar
  14. Dworkin, A. (2008) EU Governments Should Welcome Today’s ECHR Ruling on Torture. European Council on Foreign Relations Commentaries. 28 February. Available at
  15. Feeley, M. and Simon, J. (1994) “Actuarial Justice: the New Emerging Criminal Law,” in D. Nelken, ed., The Futures of Criminology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, D. (2006), Human Rights, Terrorism and Risk: the Roles of Politicians and Judges, Public Law 364–384.Google Scholar
  17. Fenwick, H. (2007). Civil Liberties and Human Rights. London et al.: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  18. Fijnaut, C., Wouters, J. and Naert, F. (2004) Introduction in Finjaut, C., Wouters, J., and Naert, F. (eds.), Legal Instruments in the Fight against International Terrorism. Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  19. Gibb, F., Tendler, S. and Ford, R. (2004). Rougher justice for Drug Barons and Gangsters: Reasonable doubt should be set aside for worst crimes, says Blair. The Times, 10 February.Google Scholar
  20. Gras, M. (2003) Kriminalprävention durch Videoüberwachung – Realität in Großbritannien, Zukunft in Deutschland? Baden-Baden:Nomos.Google Scholar
  21. Faulkner, D. (2000) Government, public service and criminal justice in Criminal Justice Matters, Nr. 38, Winter 1999/2000, p. 4.Google Scholar
  22. Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace (2005) The Failed States Index. Foreign Policy. July/August.Google Scholar
  23. Gearty, C. (2005) 11 September 2001, Counter-Terrorism, and the Human Rights Act in Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 18–33.Google Scholar
  24. Gearty, C. (2005a) Human Rights in an Age of Counter-Terrorism: Injurious, Irrelevant of Indispensable? Essays on Human Rights and Terrorism. Cameron May.Google Scholar
  25. Gearty, C. (2006) Can Human Rights Survive? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gearty, C. (2007) Civil Liberties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Golder, B. and Williams, G. (2004) “What is Terrorism?” Problems of a Legal Definition. 27 University of New South Wales Law Journal, 270.Google Scholar
  28. Green, C. (2008) Anti-terror laws used to spy on family. The Independent, 11 April.Google Scholar
  29. Gregory (2007) An assessment of the contribution of intelligence-led counter-terrorism to UK homeland security post-9/11 within the “contest” strategy, pp. 181–202 in Wilkinson, P. (ed) (2007) Homeland Security in the UK. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Gregory (2007a) Police and counter-terrorism in the UK, pp. 203–247 in Wilkinson, P. (ed) (2007) Homeland Security in the UK. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Haymann, A. (2005) Letter from the Assistant Commissioner Andy Haymann to the Home Secretary, 5 October – available at
  32. Hewitt, S. (2008) The British War on Terror. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Home Office and Northern Ireland Office (1998) Legislating Against Terrorism: A Consultation Paper, Cm 4178.Google Scholar
  34. Home Office (2000) Home Secretary’s Foreword in The Government’s Crime Reduction Strategy, S. 1, Home Office, London.Google Scholar
  35. Home Office (2001) Security Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001,
  36. Home Office (b) About the counter-terrorism strategy
  37. Home Office (c) Security Terrorism and the Law
  38. Home Office (f) How we’re protecting the UK
  39. The Independent (2005) Terror Bill: Taking liberties. The Independent, 3 March.Google Scholar
  40. The Independent (2005a) Terror Legislation: The 90 days battle. The Independent, 9 November.Google Scholar
  41. Liberty (2007) Liberty’s response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights: “Relaxing the Ban on the Admissibility of Intercept Evidence.” February. Available at:
  42. Lord Carlile of Berriew (2006) Report on the operation in 2005 of the Terrorism Act 2000. = Binary
  43. Lord Lloyd of Berwick (1996) Inquiry into Legislation against Terrorism, Cm 6420, October. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  44. Luban, D (2005) Eight Fallacies about Liberty and Security in Wilson, R.A. (ed.) Human Rights in the “War on Terror.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Macdonald, K. (2008) We must not degrade our liberties in the name of defending them, CPS inaugural lecture, 20th October 2008, reported in the Independent, 21st October 2008.Google Scholar
  46. McNulty, T. (2008) Control Order Powers (11th June 2008 – 10th September 2008), statement to Parliament of the 15th of September 2008. = Binary
  47. McNulty, T. (2008a) Letter to the Editor. The Guardian, 20 June.Google Scholar
  48. Milmo, C. (2007). Officers Involved in De Menezes Killing Escape Disciplinary Action. The Independent, 22 December.Google Scholar
  49. Milmo, C. (2008a) Muslims Feel like “Jews of Europe.” The Independent, 4 July.Google Scholar
  50. Milmo, C. (2008). De Menezes Tragedy “Could Happen Again.” The Independent, 26 September.Google Scholar
  51. Ministry of Justice (2008) The Criminal Procedure Rules. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  52. Morris, N. and Russell, B. (2005) 90 days: Plans to Lock up Terror Suspects Without Charge Provoke Outcry. The Independent, 13 October.Google Scholar
  53. Morris, N. (2007). Blair Accuses Courts of Putting Rights of Terrorist Suspects First. The Independent, 28 May.Google Scholar
  54. Norton-Taylor, R. (2008) Terror Suspects Need not be Told of Evidence. The Guardian, 18 October.Google Scholar
  55. Oborne, P. (2008) The Enemy Within? Fear of Islam: Britain’s New Disease. The Independent, 4 July.Google Scholar
  56. O’Neill, S. (2008). Is SOCA just too Soft? The Times, 13 May.Google Scholar
  57. Osley, R. (2008) “Draconian” Home Office Fast-Tracks Algerian’s Deportation. The Independent, 25 May.Google Scholar
  58. Russell, B. (2008). Home Secretary Forced into “Humiliating Retreat” over Detention Plans. The Independent, 14 October.Google Scholar
  59. PA (2008a). Great Terror Plot Building up. The Independent, 14 October.Google Scholar
  60. PA (2008b). Plan to Name and Shame Barred “Hate Preachers.” The Independent, 28 October.Google Scholar
  61. Sanders, A. and Young, R. (2003) Police Powers in Newburn, T. (ed) Handbook of Policing, 228 – 258. Willan: Culhampton.Google Scholar
  62. Sanders, A. and Young, R. (2007) Criminal Justice, 3rd ed., Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  63. Sengupta, K. (2008). Spies Take War on Terror into Cyberspace: New Approach Tackles “Severe Threat” of Attacks by Funding Monitoring Network. The Independent, 3 October.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, A.T.H. Balancing Liberty and Security? A legal analysis of United Kingdom Anti-Terrorist Legislation (this volume).Google Scholar
  65. Spencer, J. Telephone Tap Evidence and Administrative Detention in the United Kingdom. (this volume).Google Scholar
  66. South, N (2000) Late-Modern Tension not Post-Modern Transformations in CJM, no. 38, Winter 1999/2000, p. 5.Google Scholar
  67. Steel, M. (2005) The Compelling Case for more Police Powers, The Independent, 10 November.Google Scholar
  68. Steele, J. (2003) Blunkett Takes Swipe at Judges, The Daily Telegraph, 15 May.Google Scholar
  69. Summers, J. (2003). We’re Innocent Until Proved Guilty… or Until Our Assets Are Seized. The Times, 25 November.Google Scholar
  70. Szyszkowitz, T. (2005) Germany in von Hippel, K. (ed.) Europe Confronts Terrorism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  71. The Times (2007). Terrorism Assets Unit “Flawed.” The Times, 2 March.Google Scholar
  72. The Times (2008). Anti-Terror Asset-Freezing Order Improperly Made. The Times Law Reports, 5 May.Google Scholar
  73. Verkaik, R. (2003) Gangsters’ Assets to be Seized by New Agency. The Independent, 24 February.Google Scholar
  74. Warbrick, C. (2004) Emergency Powers and Human Rights: the UK Experience in Finjaut, C., Wouters, J., and Naert, F. (eds.) Legal Instruments in the Fight against International Terrorism. Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  75. Walker, C. (2004) Political Violence and Commercial Risk, 56 Current Legal Problems 531Google Scholar
  76. Walker, C. (2004a) Terrorism and Criminal Justice: Past, Present and Future, Crim LR, May 311.Google Scholar
  77. Walker, P. (2007) Control Orders Breach Human Rights, Law Lords Say. The Guardian, 31 October.Google Scholar
  78. Wilkinson, P. (2006) Terrorism versus Democracy - the Liberal State Response. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Whitty, N., Murphy, T. and Livingston, S. (2001) Civil Liberties Law: The Human Rights Act Era. Butterworths;Google Scholar
  80. Wolfowitz, P (2002) Interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, February 23.Google Scholar
  81. Zedner, L. (2005) Securing Liberty in the Face of Terror: Reflections from Criminal Justice, Journal of Law and Society, 32/4, 507–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal LawFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations