Balancing Liberty and Security? A Legal Analysis of UK Anti-Terrorist Legislation

  • Tony Smith


This chapter traces developments in Great Britain related to counterterrorism during the last few years and highlights the challenges to the rule of law raised by it, in particularly for the judiciary. It portrays the British constitutional order finding its feet after the fundamental changes made by the 1998 Human Rights Act, describing the tension arising with the judicial role changing while facing controversial measures such as 90-day detention, detention orders, and shoot-to-kill policy. An analysis of case law, government action, and academic debate end with a call for a new formula can be found, by which security interests can be measured against human rights.


Civil Liberty Judicial Review Control Order Suicide Bomber Military Tribunal 
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. Arden, D. M. (2005). Human Rights in the Age of Terrorism. The Law Quarterly Review , Volume 121, 604–627.Google Scholar
  2. Bader Ginsberg, R. (2005). A Decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human] kind: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication. The Cambridge Law Journal, 64/3, 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barak, A. (2002). Foreword: A Judge on the Role of the Supreme Court in a Democracy. Harvard Law Review, 116/1, 16–162.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, A. in Public Committee Against Torture v Israel, 1999, H.C. 5100/94.53(4) P.D. 817, 845.Google Scholar
  5. Barrell, J. (2006). Unwarranted–Review about ‘John Wilkes: The Scandalous Father of Civil Liberty’ by Arthur Cash. London Review of Books, 28/13, 6 July.Google Scholar
  6. Bingham, T. (2003). Personal Freedom and the Dilemma of Democracies. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52/4, 841–858.Google Scholar
  7. Blunkett, D., Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004). Counter Terrorism Powers: Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society. = Binary
  8. Bonner, D. (2006). Checking the Executive? Detention Without Trial, Control Orders, Due Process and Human Rights. European Public Law, 12/1, 45–71.Google Scholar
  9. Chakrabarti, S. and Gallagher, C. (2004). Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear. Counsel,Volume 5 (May 2004), 10–12.Google Scholar
  10. Department for Constitutional Affairs (2003a). Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom.
  11. Department for Constitutional Affairs (2003b). Constitutional Reform: A New Way of Appointing Judges.
  12. Dickson, B. (1992). Northern Ireland’s Emergency Legislation. Public Law, Issue 4 (Winter 1992), 592–624.Google Scholar
  13. Dinton, Wilson (2004), The Robustness of Conventions in a Time of Modernisation and Change. Public Law, Issue 2 (Summer 2004), 407–420.Google Scholar
  14. Lord Diplock (1972). Report to the Commission to Consider Legal Procedures to deal with Terrorist Activities in Northern Ireland. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London.Google Scholar
  15. Elliott, M. (2001). The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Fiss, O. (2006). The War Against Terrorism and the Rule of Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26/2, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldman, D. (2004). English Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Feldman, D. (2006). Human Rights, Terrorism and Risk: the Role of Politicians and Judges. Public Law, Issue 1 (August–November 2005), 364–384.Google Scholar
  19. Gearty, C. A and Ewing, K. D. (2000). The Struggle for Civil Liberties: Political Freedom and the Rule of Law in Britain, 1914–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gibb, F. and Charter, D. (2006). Cameron’s Bill of Rights Leaves Lawyers Baffled–The Tory Leader Runs into a Little Legal Difficulty over His Plan to Copy the US. The Times.
  21. Lord Goldsmith (2005). Balancing Security and Fundamentals Rights – the EU Presidency View. Speech of the Attorney General to the CBBE (Paris).
  22. Golove, D. (2005). United States: the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism” in the Supreme Court. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 3/1, 128–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansard, H. C., 2005, cc 325–328.Google Scholar
  24. Hope, D. (2004). Torture. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53/4, 807–832.Google Scholar
  25. House of Commons: Home Affairs Committee (2006). Terrorism Detention Powers. Fourth Report of Session. Volume I.Google Scholar
  26. Kennedy, H. (2004). Just Law: The Changing Face of Justice–And Why It Matters To Us All. London: Random House UK.Google Scholar
  27. Khan, A. (2006). Identity Cards: The Final Nail in the Coffin of Civil Liberties?. Journal of Criminal Law, 70/2, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Sueur, A. (1996). The Judicial Review Debate: From Partnership to Friction. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics, 31/1, 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowe, V. (2005). Clear and Present Danger: Responses to Terrorism. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 54/1, 185–196.Google Scholar
  30. Nolten, S. (2005). Personal Injury Update. New Law Journal, Volume 155/No. 7175, 693–695.Google Scholar
  31. Privy Counsellor Review Committee (2003). Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review: Report. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  32. Rowe, J.J. (2001). The Terrorism Act 2000. The Criminal Law Review, Issue 7 (July 2001), 27–542.Google Scholar
  33. Sands, P. (2006). Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, A.T.H. (2006). Disavowing Torture in the House of Lords. The Cambridge Law Journal, 65/2, 252–254.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, A.T.H. (1985). Dicey and Civil Liberties: A Comment. Public Law, Issue 4 (Winter 1985), 608–611.Google Scholar
  36. Lord Steyn (2005). Deference: A Tangled Story. Public Law, Issue 2 (Summer 2005), 246–359.Google Scholar
  37. Lord Steyn (2006). Democracy, the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges. European Human Rights Law Review, 11/3, 243–253.Google Scholar
  38. Stevens, R. (1997). The Independence of the Judiciary: The View from the Lord Chancellor’s Office. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  39. Stevens, R. (2002). The English Judges: Their Role in a Changing Constitution. Oxford et al.: Hart.Google Scholar
  40. Lord Woolf, H. (1998). Judicial Review – the Tension Between the Executive and the Judiciary. The Law Quarterly Review , Volume 114, 579–593.Google Scholar
  41. Lord Woolf, H. (2004). The Rule of Law and a Change in the Constitution. The Cambridge Law Review, 63/2, 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NZ Centre for Public Law School of Law, Victroia University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations