Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Precautionary Consensus?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contagion, Counter-Terrorism and Criminology

Part of the book series: Crime Prevention and Security Management ((CPSM))

  • 463 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to examine the cross-cutting trends, and indeed differences, in counter-terrorism law and policy across the three jurisdictions. In all three we can point to evidence of ‘all-risks’ policing, mass surveillance, broadly drafted legislation, a growing range of precursor offences and increasing resort to administrative over judicial authorities. Admittedly, this has occurred to varying degrees in the three jurisdictions and according to pre-established legislative patterns, practices and political cultures. There have also been marked differences in the application of these laws, emphasising the need for comparative research to examine the law in practice as well as the law in the books.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    (Application no. 4158/05), European Court of Human Rights.

  2. 2.

    Loi no. 2017-1510 renforçant la sécurité intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme—SILT) was passed on 30 October 2017.

  3. 3.

    The Polish government erroneously claimed that the limit in the UK was 28 days. Since 2011, it is in fact 14 days. See Uzasadnienie projektu ustawy. Available at: https://www.rpo.gov.pl/sites/default/files/Projekt%20ustawy%20antyterrorystycznej%20-%20wersja%20z%205%20maja%202016_0.pdf.

  4. 4.

    Loi no. 2016-731 du 3 juin 2016 renforçant la lutte contre le crime organisé, le terrorisme et leur financement, et améliorant l’efficacité et les garanties de la procédure pénale.

  5. 5.

    7 Law on Counterterrorism of 10 June 2016 (Ustawa z dnia 10 czerwca 2016 r. o działaniach antyterrorystycznych).

  6. 6.

    Interviews held on 16, 17, 18 and 19 January 2017.

  7. 7.

    These reforms should be considered alongside legislative changes to criminal procedure in March 2016 permitting evidence found illegally to be used in court. These changes open up the broad possibility that evidence gathered illegally by intelligence services will be used in criminal proceedings (Kusak, 2016; Amnesty International, 2017).

  8. 8.

    Ustawa z dnia 15 stycznia 2016 r. o zmianie ustawy o Policji oraz niektórych innych ustaw. Available at: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20160000147.

  9. 9.

    French Act 2014-1353, Art. 1, interdiction de sortie du territoire.

  10. 10.

    Up to December 2017. See Weil (2018: 11).

  11. 11.

    As of November 2017, there were approximately 20 people under house arrest (see The Local, (2017) ‘France to halve number of suspects under house arrest as part of new anti-terror law’, 2 November Available at: https://www.thelocal.fr/20171102/frances-new-terror-laws-to-see-20-suspects-held-under-house-arrest.)

  12. 12.

    As of 31 August 2017, there were six TPIM notices in force, five in respect of British citizens (Hill, 2018). According to the most recent available statistics, passport removal powers under section 1 of the 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act were invoked 24 times between February and December 2015 (HM Government, 2017). While data on the powers to withdraw passports is limited, a recent House of Commons report (2017) noted that it had been used 14 times between April 2013 and March 2014.

  13. 13.

    On two occasions in 2017 the French Constitutional Council struck down these provisions relating to the consultation of online materials that promote terrorism. See further Chap. 4.

  14. 14.

    In an October 2017 speech, the government-appointed reviewer of terrorism legislation, Max Hill QC, pointed out that ‘our legislators … have provided for just about every descriptive action in relation to terrorism’ (Liberty, 2018: 4).

  15. 15.

    [2013] UKSC 64.

  16. 16.

    Rozporządzenie Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji w sprawie katalogu incydentów o charakterze terrorystycznym. Dziennik Ustaw, No. 0, Location 1092, 2016.

  17. 17.

    Ustawa o zmianie ustawy—Kodeks karny oraz niektórych innych ustaw. Dziennik Ustaw, No. 93, Location 889, 2004.

  18. 18.

    The number of EAWs issued in Poland and resulting in effective surrender in 2016 was 1541. See ‘ENA – europejski nakaz aresztowania w latach 2004–16’, https://isws.ms.gov.pl/pl/baza-statystyczna/opracowania-wieloletnie/.

  19. 19.

    Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA.

  20. 20.

    Loi No. 2014-1353 of 13 November 2014.

  21. 21.

    The influence of these factors was also confirmed by an interview with a senior Polish academic working in this area, 16 January 2017.

  22. 22.

    Foley (2013: 237) notes that ‘The Home Office and its ministers showed considerable interest in creating “security-cleared judges”, or even special non-jury terrorism courts, but it could not get agreement within the Cabinet to these proposals, never mind convince sceptical actors outside of government. That was because these ideas – which the Home Office drew partly from its study of the French inquisitorial system – contravened longstanding rules and conventions of ordinary English justice.’

  23. 23.

    Sarkozy, Nicolas, speech in Pièce à Conviction, France 3, 26 September 2005.

  24. 24.

    See Uzasadnienie projektu ustawy. Available at: https://www.rpo.gov.pl/sites/default/files/Projekt%20ustawy%20antyterrorystycznej%20-%20wersja%20z%205%20maja%202016_0.pdf.

  25. 25.

    Seventeen people died in January 2015, 130 in November 2015 and 86 on Bastille Day 2016.

References

  • Amnesty International (2015) L’état d’urgence a visé les défenseurs de l’environnement. Paris: Amnesty International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2016a) Poland: Counter-terrorism bill would give security service unchecked power (Amnesty International Public Statement No. EUR 37/4263/2016). London: Amnesty International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2016b) Upturned lives: The disproportionate impact of France’s state of emergency. London: Amnesty International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2017) Dangerously disproportionate: The ever-expanding national security state in Europe. London: Amnesty International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. (2012) The Terrorism Acts in 2011. Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. (2014) The Terrorism Acts in 2013. Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. (2016) The Terrorism Acts in 2015. Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigo, D. and Camus, C. (2006) Overview of the French anti-terrorism strategy. Working Document, First Inventory of Policy on Counterterrorism: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. Available at: https://english.wodc.nl/binaries/ca06-3a_full_text_tcm29-68940.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutin, B. (2018) Excesses of Counter-Terrorism and Constitutional Review in France. [blog]. 15th May. Available at: http://www.asser.nl/about-the-institute/asser-today/excesses-of-counter-terrorism-and-constitutional-review-in-france-the-example-of-the-criminalisation-of-the-consultation-of-websites/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, O. (2010) The fight against terrorism and human rights: The French perspective. In: Wade, M. and Maljevic, A. (eds) A War on Terror? New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, O. (2016) «Cet ennemi intérieur, nous devons le combattre». Le dispositif antiterroriste français, une manifestation du droit pénal de l’ennemi. Archives de Politique Criminelle 38: 91–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • CNCDH (2016) Statement of opinion on the state of emergency. Paris: Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, M. (2010) ‘Introduction’ in M. Crenshaw (ed.) The Consequences of Counterterrorism. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daranowski, P. (2015) Poland. In: K. Roach (Ed.), Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer, M. and Wiegand, I. (2015) From Convergence to Deep Integration: Evaluating the Impact of EU Counter-Terrorism Strategies on Domestic Arenas, Intelligence and National Security, 30(2–3): 377–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, L. K. (2007) Britain’s Counterterrorism Policy. In: D. Zimmermann and A. Wenger (eds.) How States Fight Terrorism: Policy Dynamics in the West. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, F. (2013) Justice for suspected terrorists? In: F. Foley (ed.) Countering Terrorism in Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • French Embassy (2017) France and UK announce plan to tackle online radicalization. [press release]. 13th June. Available at: https://uk.ambafrance.org/France-and-UK-announce-plan-to-tackle-online-radicalization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galli, F. (2015) The Law on Terrorism: The UK, France and Italy Compared. Bruxelles: Bruyant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, C. (2018a) The European Union: Sword or Shield? Comparing counter-terrorism law in the EU and USA after 9/11. Theoretical Criminology, 22(2): 206–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, C. (2018b) Sword or shield? The influence of international organisations in counterterrorism law and policy making. Brazilian Journal of Criminal Sciences, Dossier ‘Los retos de la política legislativa penal a comienzos del siglo xxi’ – RBCCRIM n° 147 (septiembre/2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. (2018) The Terrorism Acts in 2016. Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Government (2017) Transparency Report 2017: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, J. S. (2013) Legitimacy and state responses to terrorism: The UK and France. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-30. Warwick School of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (2016) Investigatory Powers Bill receives Royal Assent. 29th November. [press release] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/investigatory-powers-bill-receives-royal-assent.

  • Home Office (2018) Operation of Police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation: quarterly update to December 2017. 8th March. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/686342/police-powers-terrorism-dec2017-hosb0518.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2008) Preempting justice: Counterterrorism laws and procedures in France. New York: Human Rights Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2018a) France’s Creeping terrorism Law restricting Free Speech. May 30th. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/30/frances-creeping-terrorism-laws-restricting-free-speech.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2018b) Overreach: how new global counterterrorism measures jeopardize rights. World Report 2017. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/global.

  • Interstats (2017) Insécurité et délinquance en 2016: premier bilan statistique. Paris: Ministère de Intérieur. Available at: https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Interstats/Actualites/Insecurite-et-delinquance-en-2016-premier-bilan-statistique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski, K. (2012) Prosecution and Prosecutors in Poland: In quest of independence. Crime and Justice, 41, 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusak, M. (2016) Mutual Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Matters in the EU: A Study of Telephone Tapping and House Search. IRCP Research Series. Volume Available at: https://prawo.amu.edu.pl/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/326909/IRCP-53-M-Kusak-Mutual-admissibility-E-version.pdf.

  • Labayle, H. (2012) Les infraction terroristes en droit penal francais: Quel impact des decisions-cadres de 2002 et 2008? In: F. Galli and A. Weyembergh (eds.) EU Counter-terrorism Offences: What impact on national legislation and case law? Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, G. (2015) Precautionary tales: Suspicionless counter-terrorism stop and search. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 15(1): 44–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, G. and Walker, C. (2016) Conclusions. In: G. Lennon and C. Walker (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Law and Terrorism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberty (2018) Liberty’s Second Reading Briefing on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill 2018. London: Liberty. Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/campaigns/resources/Liberty%27s%20Briefing%20on%20the%20Investigatory%20Powers%20Bill%20for%20Report%20Stage%20in%20the%20House%20of%20Commons.pdf.

  • Libront, K. (2014) Definition of Terrorist Act in International Law and Polish Criminal Law. Problems and Policy Implications. In: Milosevic, M. and Rekawek, K. (eds.) Perseverance of Terrorism: Focus on Leaders. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, D. (2001) Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Milton Keynes: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayaud, Y. (2013) La politique d’incrimination du terrorisme à la lumière de la législation récente. AJ Pénal 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. O. (2009) International Terrorism as a Force of Homogenization? A Constructivist Approach to Understanding Cross-National Threat Perceptions and Responses. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22(4): 647–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministère de Intérieur (2017) Sortie de l’état d’urgence: un bilan et des chiffres clés. [press release]. 3rd November. Available at: https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Espace-presse/Dossiers-de-presse/Sortie-de-l-etat-d-urgence-un-bilan-et-des-chiffres-cles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C. C. (2012) EU Counter-Terrorism Law: Pre-emption and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newburn, T. and Sparks, R. (2004) Criminal justice and political cultures. In: Newburn, T. and Sparks, R. Criminal Justice and Political Cultures. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oehmichen, A. (2009) Terrorism and anti-terror legislation – the terrorised legislator? A comparison of counter-terrorism legislation and its implications on human rights in the legal systems of the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and France. PhD Thesis. Leiden: Leiden University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pantazis, C. and Pemberton, S. (2009) From the old to the new suspect community. British journal of Criminology, 49(5): 646–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K. (2011) The United Kingdom Responds A Legislative War on Terrorism. In: Roach, K. (ed.) The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K. (2015) Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law Comes of Age. In: Roach, K. (ed.) Comparative Counter-Terrorism Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rydzak, J. (2016) Now Poland’s Government is Coming after the Internet. Foreign Policy, 10th June. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/10/now-polands-government-is-coming-after-the-internet/.

  • Spencer, J. R. (2012) ‘No thank you, we’ve already got one!’ Why EU anti-terrorist legislation has made little impact on the law in the UK. In: F. Galli and A. Weyembergh (eds.) EU Counter-terrorism Offences: What impact on national legislation and case law? Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugman Stubbs, K. and Galli, F. (2012) Inchoate offences: The sanctioning of an act prior to and irrespective of the commission of any harm. In: F. Galli and A. Weyembergh (eds.) EU Counter-terrorism Offences: What impact on national legislation and case law? Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tréguer, F. (2017) Intelligence reform and the Snowden Paradox: The case of France. Media and Communication 5(1): 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Human Rights Committee (2016) Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland (No. CCPR/C/POL/CO/7). Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. (2008) ‘Know thine enemy as thyself’: discerning friend from foe under anti-terrorism laws [online]. Melbourne University Law Review, 32(2): 275–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weil, S. (2018) Terror in Courts. French Counter-Terrorism: Administrative and Penal Avenues. Report for the official visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights. May 2018. Available at: https://www.sciencespo.fr/psia/sites/sciencespo.fr.psia/files/Terror%20in%20Courts.pdf.

  • Zedner, L. (2007a) Pre-crime and post-criminology? Theoretical Criminology, 11(2): 261–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2007b) Preventive justice or pre-punishment? The case of control orders. Current Legal Problems, 60(1): 174–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. (2009) Security and Counter-terrorism. In: Zedner, L. Security. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zieba, A. (2015) Counterterrorism Systems of Spain and Poland: Comparative Studies. Przeglad Politologiczny, 3, 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Maynooth University, Kildare, Maynooth, Ireland

    Claire Hamilton

Authors
  1. Claire Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Hamilton .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hamilton, C. (2019). A Precautionary Consensus?. In: Contagion, Counter-Terrorism and Criminology. Crime Prevention and Security Management. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12322-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12322-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12321-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12322-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation