Abstract
Control orders aim to prevent an individual from engaging in activities that could ultimately lead to them carrying out a terrorist attack. To do so, they impose restrictions or obligations on an individual suspected of terrorist involvement. As the previous legal analysis has highlighted, the degree to which these individuals are being restricted is extraordinary given that they have not been found guilty of any offence. Obligations ranging from regular reporting, travel and communication restrictions, and even curfews are hallmarks of control orders in both the UK and Australia. Having examined control orders from a legal perspective, the following chapter dissects the rationale and mechanisms that underlie them, and in doing so provides several appropriate analogues from both the opportunity theories and SCP. Drawing on the taxonomy of crime controllers and their associated ‘super’ equivalents, here I propose that the control order represents a hybrid ‘executive handler’ capable of directly influencing those who are deemed to pose significant risks to society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Forced relocation no longer features as part of the replacement TPIMs.
- 2.
What might appear to be a straightforward and basic concept has proven difficult to define, with no universally accepted definition as yet (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC 2007). The political construction of what amounts to terrorism remains controversial and subjective. Despite requiring states to legislate against terrorism, the UN did not agree upon a common definition of what constitutes terrorism until October 2004 (Security Council Resolution 1566, United Nations, 2004). Internationally, there is considerable variation in both the definition of terrorism, and the way in which a state defines the associated offences. Both the Australian definitions of terrorist offences and their international counterparts have been described as broad, flexible, unclear and rather vague (Gani 2008; Lynch 2006, 2007; Lynch and McGarrity 2008; Lynch and Williams 2006; Security Legislation Review Committee 2006; Walker 2007; Zedner 2009). As a result, anti-terrorism offences may lack clear legislative intent (Lynch 2006), complicating practical applications. The lack of comparable definitions across nations only adds to this ambiguity, potentially impeding coordination between nations.
- 3.
i.e. temporal, spatial, target, tactical or offence.
References
Aradau, C., & van Munster, R. (2009). Exceptionalism and the ‘War on Terror’. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 686–701.
Clare, J., & Morgan, F. (2009). Exploring parallels between situational prevention and non-criminological theories for reducing terrorist risk. In J. D. Freilich & G. R. Newman (Eds.), Reducing terrorism through situational crime prevention (Vol. 25, pp. 207–227). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.
Clarke, R. V. (2008). Situational crime prevention. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis. London: Routledge.
Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. R. (2006). Outsmarting the terrorists. Westport: Praeger Security International.
Emerton, P. (2007). Australia’s terrorism offences—A case against. In A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror. Sydney: Federation Press.
Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place: Crime prevention studies (Vol. 4, pp. 53–66). Monsey: Ciminal Justice Press.
Gani, M. (2008). How does it end? Reflections on completed prosecutions under Australia’s anti-terrorism legislation. In M. Gani & P. Mathew (Eds.), Fresh perspectives on the war on terror. Canberra: ANU E Press.
Goldsmith, A. (2008). The governance of terror: Precautionary logic and counterterrorist law reform after September 11. Law & Policy, 30(2), 141–167.
Lord Carlile of Berriew QC. (2007). The Definition of Terrorism: A Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C., Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. London.
Lynch, A. (2006). Legislating with urgency—the enactment of the anti-terrorism act [no 1] 2005. Melbourne University Law Review, 30(3), 747–781.
Lynch, A. (2007). Achieving security, respecting rights and maintaining the rule of law. In A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror. Sydney: Federation Press.
Lynch, A., & McGarrity, N. (2008). Australia’s Counter-terrorism laws: How neutral laws create fear and anxiety in muslim communities. Alternative Law Journal, 33(4), 225–228.
Lynch, A., & Williams, G. (2006). What price security? Taking stock of australia’s anti-terror laws. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
Manningham-Buller, E. (2005). The International Terrorist Threat and the Dilemmas in Countering It. Speech By The Director General Of The Security Service, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, At The Ridderzaal, Binnenhof, The Hague, Netherlands, 1 September 2005., from https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/director-generals-speech-to-the-aivd-2005.html.
Roach, K. (2010). The eroding distinction between intelligence and evidence in terrorism investigations. In N. McGarrity, A. Lynch, & G. Williams (Eds.), Counter-terrorism and beyond: The culture of law and justice after 9/11. London: Routledge.
Security Council Resolution 1566, S/RES/1566 (2004), United Nations (2004).
Security Legislation Review Committee. (2006). Report of the security legislation review committee. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, C. (2007). The United Kingdom’s anti-terrorism laws: Lessons for Australia. In A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror. Sydney: Federation Press.
Zedner, L. (2006). Neither safe nor sound? The perils and possibilities of risk. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 48(3), 423–434.
Zedner, L. (2007). Preventive justice or pre-punishment? The case of control orders. Current Legal Problems, 60(1), 174–203. doi:10.1093/clp/60.1.174.
Zedner, L. (2009). Fixing the future? The pre-emptive turn in criminal justice. In B. McSherry, A. Norrie, & S. Bronitt (Eds.), Regulating deviance: The redirection of criminalisation and the futures of criminal law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Donkin, S. (2014). Executive Terrorism Prevention and Risk Control. In: Preventing Terrorism and Controlling Risk. SpringerBriefs in Criminology(), vol 1. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8705-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8705-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8704-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8705-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)