Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Contemporary Security Agendas Against Terrorism on the Substantive Criminal Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Post 9/11 and the State of Permanent Legal Emergency

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 14))

Abstract

This chapter explores three questions regarding how the substantive criminal law has been impacted upon by terrorism. The first concerns the appropriate overall role to be served by the criminal law in regard to counter-terrorism as compared to other potentially coercive exercises of state power, such as executive (Ministerial) measures. The second and third questions relate to the modes of application of the criminal law within counter-terrorism and, closely related, how far criminal law may be altered from its ‘norm’ or paradigm format in the pursuit of those functions and yet retain sufficient recognisable characteristics essential for legitimacy. Six functions are identified. First, criminal law can allow for prescient intervention before a terrorist crime is completed. Second, there can be net-widening, so that peripheral suspects can be neutralised. Third, criminal law can instil a lowest common denominator of rights and so reduce obstructive ‘technicalities’. Fourth, the criminal law can be used to mobilise the population against terrorism – to force them to assist in counter-terrorism work. Fifth, the criminal law can serve a denunciatory function. Sixth, the criminal law can bolster symbolic solidarity with the state’s own citizens and with the international community. The overall thesis adopted for the purposes of this paper is that the challenge of terrorism can be the trigger for a variety of rational and effective legal responses within criminal justice and that not all ‘special’ laws must invariably be viewed as illegitimate. Criminal justice solutions to counter-terrorism are worthwhile and should be prioritised, but they are not all without costs to the values of criminal justice. Therefore, the state should not assume that a criminal justice preference in counter-terrorism represents an unquestionable victory for societal values.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    J. M. Collins, “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down,” American Criminal Law Review 39 (2002): 1261.

  2. 2.

    See C. Walker, “Clamping Down on Terrorism in the United Kingdom,” Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006): 1137.

  3. 3.

    See K. Loewenstein, “Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights” (Pt 1) American Political Science Review 31 (1937): 417, 638; A. Sajo, ed., Militant Democracy (Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing, 2004); M. Thiel, ed., The ‘Militant Democracy’ Principle in Modern Democracies (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009).

  4. 4.

    See M. King, The Framework of Criminal Justice (London: Croom Helm, 1981), chap. 2.

  5. 5.

    H. L. Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969) at 153.

  6. 6.

    M. J. Damaska, The Faces of Justice and State Authority (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) at 241.

  7. 7.

    See A. Lester, “The Mouse That Roared,” Public Law (1995): 198.

  8. 8.

    For a full survey of that catalogue, see C. Walker, Terrorism and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

  9. 9.

    Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Close of Detention Facilities and for a Review of Detention Policy Options (Executive Orders 13492 and 13493, 74 FR 4897 and 4901).

  10. 10.

    Detention Policy Task Force, Memorandum for the Attorney General and for the Secretary of Defense.

  11. 11.

    Final Report (Washington DC: Department of Justice, 2010).

  12. 12.

    PL 111-84. See Al-Bihani v Obama (2010) 590 F 3d 866.

  13. 13.

    See http://www.defense.gov/news/commissionsKhadr.html

  14. 14.

    See especially C. Zerrougui, et al., Situation of Detainees in Guantanamo Bay (E/CN.4/2006/120, New York, 2006); G. Rona, “An Appraisal of US Practice Relating to “Enemy Combatants”,” Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 10 (2007): 232.

  15. 15.

    US citizens could not be held indefinitely as enemy combatants: Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004) 542 US 507. Prosecutions were mounted for example against John Walker-Lindh (227 F Supp 2d 565 (2002)) and James Ujaama (see US v Kassir 2009 US Dist LEXIS 83075).

  16. 16.

    See also the (Israeli) Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law 2002.

  17. 17.

    L. K. Donohue, The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 2. See further B. Wittes, ed., Legislating the War on Terror: An Agenda for Reform (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2009).

  18. 18.

    The Guardian, January 15, 2009 at 29.

  19. 19.

    President Bush, State of the Union Address 20 January 2004 (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html)

  20. 20.

    US Presidential Order, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, of the 13 November 2001 (66 Federal Register 57831); Terrorist Surveillance Program (see Offices of the Inspectors General, Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program, Report 2009-0013-AS, Washington, DC, 2009).

  21. 21.

    House of Commons Debates vol. 472 col.561 (21 February 2008), Tony McNulty.

  22. 22.

    Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers (Cm 8803, London, 2011), p. 9.

  23. 23.

    Report of the Commission to Consider Legal Procedures to Deal with Terrorist Activities in Northern Ireland (Cmnd. 5185, London, 1972).

  24. 24.

    See C. Walker, “The Role and Powers of the Army in Northern Ireland,” in Northern Ireland Politics and the Constitution, ed. B. Hadfield, 114–115 (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1992) at 112; L. K. Donohue, Counter-Terrorism Law (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2001). These courts continue in modified form under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007: C. Walker, Terrorism and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), chap.11.

  25. 25.

    Report of the Commission to Consider Legal Procedures to Deal with Terrorist Activities in Northern Ireland (Cmnd. 5185, London, 1972) para.24.

  26. 26.

    Ibidem at para.12.

  27. 27.

    House of Lords Debates vol.629 col.459 (29 November 2001), Lord Rooker.

  28. 28.

    See A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56.

  29. 29.

    See C. Walker, “Keeping Control of Terrorists Without Losing Control of Constitutionalism,” Stanford Law Review 59 (2007): 1395.

  30. 30.

    http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page8041

  31. 31.

    See C. Walker, “The Treatment of Foreign Terror Suspects,” Modern Law Review 70 (2007): 427.

  32. 32.

    See C. Walker, ““Know Thine Enemy as Thyself”: Discerning Friend from Foe Under Anti-terrorism Laws,” (2008) 32 Melbourne Law Review 275.

  33. 33.

    Another consequence is an emphasis on social control through prevention: see Home Office, Prevent Strategy (Cm.8092, London, 2011); C. Walker and J. Rehman, ““Prevent” Responses to Jihadi Extremism,” in Global Anti-terrorism Law and Policy, ed. V. V. Ramraj, M. Hor, and K. Roach, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

  34. 34.

    See Home Office, Operation of Police Powers Under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Subsequent Legislation (18/09, London, 2009) at 12.

  35. 35.

    See C. Walker, ““Know Thine Enemy as Thyself”: Discerning Friend from Foe Under Anti-terrorism Laws,” Melbourne Law Review 32 (2008): 275.

  36. 36.

    Joint Committee on Human Rights, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Prosecution and Pre-Charge Detention (2005-06 HL 240/HC 1576) para. 7.

  37. 37.

    https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/intelligence-counter-terrorism-and-trust.html

  38. 38.

    House of Commons Debates vol. 525 col.26 (17 March 2011), Theresa May.

  39. 39.

    Source: Home Office, Statistics on Terrorism Arrests and Outcomes Great Britain 11 September 2001 to 31 March 2008 (04/09, Home Office, London, 2009).

  40. 40.

    See C. Walker, “Irish Republic Prisoners, Political Detainees, Prisoners of War or Common Criminals?,” Irish Jurist 19 (1984): 189; M. von Tangen Page, Prisons, Peace and Terrorism (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998); J. Williams, “Hunger-Strikes: A Prisoner’s Right or a “Wicked Folly”?,” Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2001): 285.

  41. 41.

    See R v Bourgass [2005] EWCA Crim 1943, [2006] EWCA Crim 3397; R v Barot [2007] EWCA Crim 1119; R v Khyam [2008] EWCA Crim 1612; R v Ibrahim [2008] EWCA Crim 880; R v Asiedu [2008] EWCA Crim 1725; R v Sherif [2008] EWCA Crim 2653; R v Ali The Times 9 September 2008 at 1; R v Abdulla The Times 17 December 2008 at 1. The same feature applies in the US: R. M. Chesney, “Beyond Conspiracy? Anticipatory Prosecution and the Challenge of Unaffiliated Terrorism,” Southern California Law Review 80 (2007): 425 at 495–498.

  42. 42.

    Terrorism Act 2000 (Cessation of Effect of Section 76) Order 2002 SI 2141. See further Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Police Interrogation Procedures in Northern Ireland (Cmnd.9497, London, 1979).

  43. 43.

    See s.9. The sunset has been postponed at least until 2013: Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Orders, SI 2009/2090, SI 2011/1720.

  44. 44.

    Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001, SI 2001 No. 3644.

  45. 45.

    G. Jakobs and M. Cancio Meliá, Derecho Penal Del Enemigo, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Civitas, 2006); M. Cancio Meliá, “Terrorism and Criminal Law,” New Criminal Law Review 14 (2011): 108.

  46. 46.

    There are doubts as to whether it is possible to derogate from art.6: D. Weissbrodt, The Right to a Fair Trial Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Hague, Kluwer, 2001); Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, 4th Report to the General Assembly (A/63/223, 2008) para.12; Öcalan v Turkey, App. no.46221/99, 2005-IV, para.112.

  47. 47.

    G. Agamben, State of Exception (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). Compare: S. R. Chowdhury, The Rule of Law in a State of Emergency (London: Pinter,1989); J. E. Finn, Constitutions in Crisis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); J. Oraa, Human Rights in States of Emergency in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); J. M. Fitzpatrick, Human Rights in Crisis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994); D. Dyzenhaus, “Schmitt v Dicey,” Cardozo Law Review 27 (2006): 2005.

  48. 48.

    App. no. 332/57, Ser A 3 (1961).

  49. 49.

    J. Steyn, “Guantanamo Bay,” International and Comparative Legal Quarterly 53 (2003): 1. See also H. Duffy, The ‘War on Terror’ and the Framework of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); C. Walker, “The Threat of Terrorism and the Fate of Control Orders,” Public Law (2010): 3, “The Judicialisation of Intelligence in Legal Process,” Public Law (2011): 235; Al-Skeini v United Kingdom (app. no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011); Al-Jedda v United Kingdom (App. no.27021/08, 7 July 2011).

  50. 50.

    See M. A. Drumbi, “The Expressive Value of Prosecuting and Punishing Terrorists,” George Washington Law Review 75 (2007): 1165 at 1170; K. Roach, “The Criminal Law and Terrorism,” in Global Anti-terrorism Law and Policy, ed. V. V. Ramraj, M. Hor, and K. Roach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) at 137.

  51. 51.

    http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/director-generals-speech-to-the-aivd-2005.html

  52. 52.

    Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts 1974 and 1976 (Cmnd.7324, London, 1978) para.52.

  53. 53.

    See House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Terrorism and Community Relations (2003-04 HC 165) para.153; G. Mythen, et al., “I’m a Muslim, but I’m not a terrorist,” British Journal of Criminology 49 (2009): 736 at 744; T. Choudhury and H. Fenwick, The Impact of Counter-Terrorism Measures on Muslim Communities (Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 72, London, 2011).

  54. 54.

    The most comprehensive survey is by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, What Perceptions do the UK Public Have Concerning the Impact of Counter-Terrorism Legislation Implemented Since 2000? (Home Office Occasional Paper 88, London, 2010).

  55. 55.

    Consultation Paper, Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice (Cm.7583, London, 2009) at 5.

  56. 56.

    See HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Muslim Prisoners’ Experiences (London, 2010); R (Bourgass and Hussain) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 286 (Admin).

  57. 57.

    See A. Dershowitz, The Case for Preemption (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006); R. Suskind, The One Percent Doctrine (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007).

  58. 58.

    See R. Chesney and J. Goldsmith, “Terrorism and the Convergence of Criminal and Military Detention Models,” Stanford Law Review 60 (2008): 1079 at 1084, 1088.

  59. 59.

    Joint Committee on Human Rights, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Prosecution and Pre-Charge Detention (2005-06 HL 240/HC 1576) paras.12, 28.

  60. 60.

    See also Theft Act 1968s.2; Prevention of Crime Act 1953s.1; Firearms Act 1968 ss.16–21.

  61. 61.

    C. Walker, Terrorism and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), chap.5.

  62. 62.

    Compare the prosecution for sedition in State of Israel v Kahane [2000] IsrSC 54 (5) 145, CrimA F.H. 1789/98, at 24 where Kahane’s pamphlet not only (setting a climate) depicted Arab villages as ‘nests of murderers’ but also (as emulation) called for the destruction of Arab villages in response to the killing of Jews.

  63. 63.

    See Joint Committee on Human Rights, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Prosecution and Pre-Charge Detention (2005-06 HL 240/HC 1576) para 54.

  64. 64.

    Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s 1(1).

  65. 65.

    House of Commons Debates vol 438 col 999 (3 November 2005), Paul Goggins.

  66. 66.

    A. Jones, R. Bowers, and H. D. Lodge, The Terrorism Act 2006 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) para 3.05.

  67. 67.

    House of Commons Debates vol 438 col 1015 (3 November 2005), Paul Goggins; Government Reply to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (2005-06 HL114/HC 888) p 10.

  68. 68.

    According to CSRT proceedings at Guantánamo, at least 317 detainees ‘took military or terrorist training in Afghanistan.’ (B. Wittes, Law and the Long War (New York: Penguin, 2008) at 81). Compare 18 U.S.C. s.2339D (Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004, Pub. L. 108–458). This provision is narrower since there must be a link to a designated foreign terrorist organization. US v. Maldonado, H-07-125 M (S.D. Tex.) (alleging receipt of training from al Qa’ida while in Mogadishu, Somalia).

  69. 69.

    R v Qureshi [2008] EWCA Crim 1054.

  70. 70.

    Gordon Brown, The Times, December 15, 2008, p. 33.

  71. 71.

    See C. Walker, Terrorism and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), chap.8.

  72. 72.

    See Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, Report to the General Assembly (A/61/267, 2006) para.26.

  73. 73.

    See R. M. Chesney, “Beyond Conspiracy? Anticipatory Prosecution and the Challenge of Unaffiliated Terrorism,” Southern California Law Review 80 (2007): 425, 437–446 (2007). For a rare case, see Rangzieb Ahmed The Times 19 December 2008 at 17, 20 December 2008 at 8.

  74. 74.

    Inserted by Act no. 96-647 of 22nd July 1996 Article 2 Official Journal 23 July 1996. See also the Italian Penal Code art.416-bis (‘Association of Mafia type’).

  75. 75.

    M. McColgan and A. Attanasio, France: Paving the Way for Arbitrary Justice (Paris: FIDH, 1999) at 35. See also Y. Mayaud, Le Terrorisme (Paris, Dalloz, 1997) at 27–29; Human Rights Watch, Preempting Justice: Counter-Terrorism Laws and Procedure in France (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2008) Part IV; A. Garapon, “The Oak and the Reed,” Cardozo Law Review 27 (2006): 2041 at 2055.

  76. 76.

    S. Wallerstein, “Criminalising Remote Harm and the Case of Anti-democratic Activity,” Cardozo Law Review 28 (2007): 2697.

  77. 77.

    Joint Committee on Human Rights, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Prosecution and Pre-Charge Detention (2005-06 HL 240/HC 1576) para.12.

  78. 78.

    See R. A. Duff, Criminal Attempts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) at 33–75.

  79. 79.

    See S. Wallerstein, “The State’s Duty of Self Defence,” in Security and Human Rights, ed. B. J. Goold and L. Lazarus (Oxford: Hart, 2007).

  80. 80.

    Compare V. Tadros, “Justice and Terrorism,” New Criminal Law Review 10 (2007): 658 at 675; Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, Report to the General Assembly (A/61/267, 2006) para.11.

  81. 81.

    See A. von Hirsch, “Extending the Harm Principle,” in Harm and Culpability, ed. A. P. Simester and A. T. H. Smith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) at 267.

  82. 82.

    See J. Feinberg, Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Harm to Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984) at 187–217.

  83. 83.

    Compare Redmond-Bate v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 732; Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23; Munim Abdul and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] EWHC 247 (Admin).

  84. 84.

    U. S. (2010). For challenges to the designation, see Humanitarian Law Project v US Department of Treasury 484 F. Supp 2d 1099 (CD Cal., 2007); Humanitarian Law Project v Mukasey 509 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2007), 552 F.3d 916 (9th Cir., 2009). Note also 32 County Sovereignty Committee v Department of State 292 F.3d 797 (DC Cir., 2002); Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v Ashcroft 333 F.3d 156 (DC Cir., 2003); Rubin v HAMAS 2004 WL 2216489.

  85. 85.

    USC s.2339B, as originally enacted by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996, PL 104–132. See R. M. Chesney, “Beyond Conspiracy? Preventive Prosecution and the Challenge of Unaffiliated Terrorism,” Southern California Law Review 80 (2007): 425; J. J. Ward, “Note: The Root of All Evil: Expanding Criminal Liability for Providing Material Support to Terror,” Notre Dame Law Review 84 (2008): 471.

  86. 86.

    Brogan v United Kingdom, App. nos. 11209, 11234, 11266/84, 11386/85, Ser. A 145-B (1988) para.50.

  87. 87.

    See C. Walker, “The Legal Definition of “Terrorism” in United Kingdom Law and Beyond,” Public Law (2007): 331.

  88. 88.

    The argument that ‘terrorism’ is an unsuitable term because it embodies motive and therefore should relate to sentencing rather than criminality ignores the many other instances where criminal law embodies motive/purpose. See M. S.-A. Wattad, “Is Terrorism a Crime or an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing?,” Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006): 1017.

  89. 89.

    See Report of a Committee to consider, in the context of civil liberties and human rights, measures to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland (Cmnd.5847, London, 1975) para.70; House of Lords Debates vol.611 col.1487 (6 April 2000), Lord Bassam.

  90. 90.

    See Internal Security Act no 74 of 1982 s.54 as considered by the (Rabie) Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation (RP90/1981, Pretoria, 1981) paras. 8.3.5., 9.21-9.2.2.3; Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, 2004 (no.33), s.2, as considered by the South Africa Law Commission, Project 105: Report on Review of Security Legislation (Pretoria, 2002).

  91. 91.

    See B. Saul, Defining Terrorism in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); M. Lehto, Indirect Responsibility for Terrorism Acts (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2010), chap. 2.

  92. 92.

    A/RES/52/164, Cm.4662, London, 1997.

  93. 93.

    /475/JHA, OJ L164, article 9.

  94. 94.

    Such is the case of Somali pirates: M. D. Fink and R. J. Galvin, “Combating Pirates Off the Coast of Somalia,” Netherlands International Law Review 56 (2009): 367; E. Kontorovich, “A Guantánamo on the Sea,” California Law Review 98 (2010): 243; D. Guilfoyle, “Counter-Piracy Law Enforcement and Human Rights,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59 (2010): 141; House of Lords European Union Committee, Combating Somali Piracy (2009–10 HL 103).

  95. 95.

    See R v F [2007] EWCA Crim 243. But the legitimacy of violence in conflict is recognised in Secretary of State for the Home Department v DD (Afghanistan) [2010] EWCA Civ 1407.

  96. 96.

    See especially Letter dated 15 August 2003 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/818) and UN SCR 1506 of 12 September 2003.

  97. 97.

    But foreign supporters are more actively suppressed; see the cases of Ibrahim Moussawi (“Hezbollah Newspaper Editor Is Refused Visa,” The Times, March 14, 2009 at 14) and Naik v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin).

  98. 98.

    Compare the US conviction of Javed Iqbal (B. Weiser, “S.I. Man Gets Prison Term for Aid to Hezbollah TV,” New York Times, April 24, 2009 at A22) on charges under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for providing aid to a designated foreign terrorist organization (see http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4134.htm).

  99. 99.

    “Tamil Protesters Block Parliament,” The Times, April 8, 2009 at 20.

  100. 100.

    Terrorism Act 2000, ss 63E, 117; Terrorism Act 2006, ss 19, 37; Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, s 29. See Lord Carlile, The Definition of Terrorism (Cm.7052, London, 2007) para. 81.

  101. 101.

    Lord Carlile, Proposals by Her Majesty’s Government for Changes to the Laws Against Terrorism (London: Home Office, 2005) para. 49.

  102. 102.

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/archive/2007/138_07.html

  103. 103.

    Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts 1974 and 1976 (Cmnd.7324, London, 1978) para.52.

  104. 104.

    The point was recently confirmed in Gäfgen v. Germany, App no 22978/05, 1 July 2010, para.162.

  105. 105.

    See L. Zedner, “Seeking Security by Eroding Rights,” in Security and Human Rights, ed. B. J. Goold and L. Lazarus (Oxford: Hart, 2007) at 259.

  106. 106.

    [2004] UKHL 43 at para.21 per Lord Bingham. See S. Treschel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) at 168–171.

  107. 107.

    [2000] 2 AC 326. See now Terrorism Act 2000 s.118.

  108. 108.

    [2007] EWCA Crim 243. See further ‘Comment’ [2007] Criminal Law Review 160.

  109. 109.

    [2009] UKHL 13 at paras.75, 77.

  110. 110.

    [2009] UKHL 13 at para.43.

  111. 111.

    Ibidem at para. 74.

  112. 112.

    Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.160.

  113. 113.

    [2008] EWCA Crim 184.

  114. 114.

    [2008] EWCA Crim 185.

  115. 115.

    Ibidem at para.29.

  116. 116.

    Ibidem at para.14. See further R v G [2009] UKHL 13 at para.44 on reliance upon extrinsic explanations.

  117. 117.

    [2008] EWCA Crim 1450.

  118. 118.

    V. Tadros, “Crime and Security,” Modern Law Review 71 (2008): 940 at 968.

  119. 119.

    Home Office, Statistics on Terrorism Arrests and Outcomes Great Britain 11 September 2001 to 31 March 2008 (04/09, London, 2009).

  120. 120.

    Terror and Consent (London: Allen Lane, 2008) at 147.

  121. 121.

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

  122. 122.

    See D. Childs and R. Popplewell, The Stasi (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996); J. O. Koehler, Stasi (Boulder: Westview Press, 2000).

  123. 123.

    See A Report on the Surveillance Society (Wilmslow: Information Commissioner, 2006); R. Thomas and M. Walport, Data Sharing Review (London: Ministry of Justice, 2008); House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, A Surveillance Society? (2007–08 HC 58, and Government Reply, Cm 7449, 2008); House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Surveillance: Citizens and the State (2008–09 HL 18, and Government Reply, Cm 7616, 2009); M. Scheinin, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism (A/HRC/13/37, 2009).

  124. 124.

    See L. K. Donohue, The Cost of Counterterrorism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 251.

  125. 125.

    Homeland Security Act 2002 (PL 107-296), s 880.

  126. 126.

    See https://tips.fbi.gov/; http://www.met.police.uk/so/at_hotline.htm

  127. 127.

    See http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/; Act to Combat International Terrorism 1984 (PL 98-533, 18 USC s.3071). The PATRIOT Act 2001(PL 107-56) increased the maximum reward to $25 m.

  128. 128.

    See C. Walker, Terrorism and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), chaps. 3, 9.

  129. 129.

    http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/9/0,3343,en_32250379_32236920_34032073_1_1_1_1,00.html

  130. 130.

    Terrorism Act 2000, Sch 3A, as substituted by: Terrorism Act 2000 (Business in the Regulated Sector and Supervisory Authorities) Order 2007, SI 2007/3288; The Terrorism Act 2000 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Amendment) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/3398. The duty is required by the Third Money Laundering Directive 2005/60/EC, art 22.

  131. 131.

    See C. Walker, “Conscripting the Public in Terrorism Policing: Towards Safer Communities or a Police State?,” Criminal Law Review (2010): 441.

  132. 132.

    R v Girma [2009] EWCA Crim 912; R v Sherif [2008] EWCA Crim 2653.

  133. 133.

    See C. P. Walker, The Prevention of Terrorism in British Law, 2nd ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992), 141–143.

  134. 134.

    House of Commons Debates vol 882, cols 928-9 (28 November 1974) George Cunningham.

  135. 135.

    See further C. Walker, “Intelligence and Anti-terrorism Legislation in the United Kingdom,” Crime, Law and Social Change 44 (2006): 387.

  136. 136.

    Home Office, Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism (Cm.7547, London, 2009).

  137. 137.

    Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Cmnd 8803, London, 1983) para101.

  138. 138.

    See A. Ashworth, “The Scope of Criminal Liability for Omissions,” Law Quarterly Review 105 (1989): 424; M. Vranken, “Duty to Rescue in Civil Law and Common Law,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47 (1998): 934; M. Menlowe and A. McCall Smith, eds., Duty to Rescue (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1993); Law Commission, Report 237: Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter (2005-06 HC 171) paras.2.23, 5.45.

  139. 139.

    House of Commons Debates vol 904, col 475 (28 January 1976), Ian Mikado.

  140. 140.

    Crime and Disorder Act 1998s.36.

  141. 141.

    See G. S. McBain, “Abolishing the Crimes of Treason,” Australian Law Journal 81 (2007): 94.

  142. 142.

    See: Fabian Society, Tract No. 416, Emergency Powers: A Fresh Start (London: Fabian Society, 1972) at 19.

  143. 143.

    See S. K. Babb, “Fear and Loathing in America,” Hastings Law Journal 54 (2003): 1721; T. W. Bell, “Treason, Technology and Freedom of Expression,” Arizona State Law Journal 37 (2005): 999; C. F. W. Larson, “The Forgotten Constitutional Law of Treason and the Enemy Combatant Problem,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (2006): 863.

  144. 144.

    See D. A. Kash, “The United States v. Adam Gadahn: A Case for Treason,” Capital University Law Review 37 (2008): 1; M. Head, Crimes Against the State (Abingdon: Ashgate, 2011), chap. 4.

  145. 145.

    United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88; 1999 at 94.

  146. 146.

    Lord Goldsmith, Citizenship: Our Common Bond (London: Ministry of Justice, 2008) para.4.42; M. Head, Crimes Against the State (Abingdon: Ashgate, 2011), chap. 6.

  147. 147.

    Australian Law Reform Commission, Fighting Words (Report 104, Canberra, 2006), chaps. 8, 9, 11.

  148. 148.

    See C. Walker, Terrorism and the Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), chap. 6.

  149. 149.

    A. Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002) at 22.

  150. 150.

    T. Baldwin, “You Will Die with a Whimper,” The Times, May 5, 2006, at 35.

  151. 151.

    CETS No 196. See further Committee of Experts on Terrorism, ‘Apologie du Terrorisme’ and ‘Incitement to Terrorism’ (CODEXTER, Strasbourg, 2004); Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (2006-07 HL 26/HC 247); A. Hunt, “The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism,” European Public Law 4 (2006): 603.

  152. 152.

    See House of Lords Debates vol 679, col 136 (28 February 2006), vol 680, col 241 (22 March 2006).

  153. 153.

    See P. C. Szasz, “The Security Council Starts Legislating,” American Journal of International Law 96 (2002): 901; E. Rosand, “Security Council Resolution 1373, The Counter Terrorism Committee and the Fight Against Terrorism,” American Journal of International Law 97 (2003): 333.

  154. 154.

    See Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, First Report to the Human Rights Commission, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/98,2005).

  155. 155.

    [2002] O.J. L164/3.

  156. 156.

    See K. Nuotio, “Terrorism as a Catalyst for the Emergence, Harmonization and the Reform of the Criminal Law,” Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006): 998 at 1010. See further Commission Staff Working Document, Synthesis of the Replies from the Member States to the Questionnaire on Criminal Law, Administrative/Procedural Law and Fundamental Rights in the Fight against Terrorism (SEC 2009/225).

  157. 157.

    See Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.

  158. 158.

    See M. Castells, The Rise of Network Society (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996).

  159. 159.

    Compare B. Lia, Globalisation and the Future of Terrorism (London: Routledge, 2005); P. Neumann, Old and New Terrorism (Cambridge: Polity, 2009); E. N. Kurtulus, “The “New Terrorism” and Its Critics,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 34 (2011): 476.

  160. 160.

    Home Office, Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism (Cm.7547, London, 2009) para.0.17.

  161. 161.

    K. Roach, “Anti-terrorism and Militant Democracy,” in Militant Democracy, ed. A. Sajo (Utrecht: Eleven International, 2004) at 186.

  162. 162.

    See K. Starmer, “Setting the Record Straight: Human Rights in an Era of International Terrorism,” European Human Rights Law Review (2007) 123 at p 131.

  163. 163.

    See C. Walker and K. Starmer, Miscarriages of Justice (London: Blackstone Press, 1999), chaps. 2, 14; K. Roach and G. Trotter, “Miscarriages of Justice in the War Against Terrorism,” Penn State Law Review 109 (2005): 967; L. Zedner, “Securing Liberty in the Face of Terror,” Journal of Law and Society 32 (2005): 507 at 524.

  164. 164.

    Home Office, From the Neighbourhood to the National (Cm.7448, London, 2008) at 25.

  165. 165.

    One such initiative is Project Channel (see Home Office, Channel: Supporting Individuals Vulnerable to Recruitment by Violent Extremists (London: Home Office, 2010)), but its failings to date are recognised in Home Office, Prevent Strategy (Cm.8092, London, 2011).

Bibliography

  • Agamben, G. 2005. State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. 1989. The scope of criminal liability for omissions. Law Quarterly Review 105: 424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission. 2006. Fighting words. Report 104, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babb, S.K. 2003. Fear and loathing in America. Hastings Law Journal 54: 1721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T.W. 2005. Treason, technology and freedom of expression. Arizona State Law Journal 37: 999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbitt, P. 2008. Terror and consent. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cancio Meliá, M. 2011. Terrorism and criminal law. New Criminal Law Review 14: 108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. 1996. The rise of network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesney, R.M. 2007. Beyond conspiracy? Anticipatory prosecution and the challenge of unaffiliated terrorism. Southern California Law Review 80: 425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesney, R., and J. Goldsmith. 2008. Terrorism and the convergence of criminal and military detention models. Stanford Law Review 60: 1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs, D., and R. Popplewell. 1996. The Stasi. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, T., and H. Fenwick. 2011. The impact of counter-terrorism measures on Muslim communities. Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 72, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury, S.R. 1989. The rule of law in a state of emergency. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J.M. 2002. And the walls came tumbling down. American Criminal Law Review 39: 1261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaska, M.J. 1986. The faces of justice and state authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dershowitz, A. 2002. Why terrorism works. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dershowitz, A. 2006. The case for preemption. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, L.K. 2001. Counter-terrorism law. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, L.K. 2008. The cost of counterterrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Drumbi, M.A. 2007. The expressive value of prosecuting and punishing terrorists. George Washington Law Review 75: 1165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, R.A. 1996. Criminal attempts. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, H. 2005. The ‘War on Terror’ and the framework of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus, D. 2006. Schmitt v Dicey. Cardozo Law Review 27: 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabian Society. 1972. Tract No. 416, Emergency powers: A fresh start. London: Fabian Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. 1984. Moral limits of the criminal law: Harm to others. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, M.D., and R.J. Galvin. 2009. Combating pirates off the coast of Somalia. Netherlands International Law Review 56: 367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J.E. 1991. Constitutions in crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, J.M. 1994. Human rights in crisis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garapon, A. 2006. The oak and the reed. Cardozo Law Review 27: 2041.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilfoyle, D. 2010. Counter-piracy law enforcement and human rights. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59: 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, M. 2011. Crimes against the state. Abingdon: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, A. 2006. The Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism. European Public Law 4: 603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs, G., and M. Cancio Meliá. 2006. Derecho Penal Del Enemigo, 2nd ed. Madrid: Civitas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., R. Bowers, and H.D. Lodge. 2006. The Terrorism Act 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kash, D.A. 2008. The United States v. Adam Gadahn: A case for treason. Capital University Law Review 37: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. 1981. The framework of criminal justice. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J.O. 2000. Stasi. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontorovich, E. 2010. A Guantánamo on the sea. California Law Review 98: 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtulus, E.N. 2011. The “new terrorism” and its critics. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 34: 476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, C.F.W. 2006. The forgotten constitutional law of treason and the enemy combatant problem. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154: 863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehto, M. 2010. Indirect responsibility for terrorism acts. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, A. 1995. The mouse that roared. Public Law 198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lia, B. 2005. Globalisation and the future of terrorism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, K. 1937. Militant democracy and fundamental rights (Pt 1 and 2). American Political Science Review 31:417, 638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Carlile. 2005. Proposals by Her Majesty’s Government for changes to the laws against terrorism. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Carlile. 2007. The definition of terrorism. Cm.7052, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord Goldsmith. 2008. Citizenship: Our common bond. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayaud, Y. 1997. Le Terrorisme. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBain, G.S. 2007. Abolishing the crimes of treason. Australian Law Journal 81: 94.

    Google Scholar 

  • McColgan, M., and A. Attanasio. 1999. France: Paving the way for arbitrary justice. Paris: FIDH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menlowe, M., and A. McCall Smith (eds.). 1993. Duty to rescue. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mythen, G., et al. 2009. I’m a Muslim, but I’m not a terrorist. British Journal of Criminology 49: 736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, P. 2009. Old and new terrorism. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuotio, K. 2006. Terrorism as a catalyst for the emergence, harmonization and the reform of the criminal law. Journal of International Criminal Justice 4: 998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oraa, J. 1992. Human rights in states of emergency in international law. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H.L. 1969. The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K. 2004. Anti-terrorism and militant democracy. In Militant democracy, ed. A. Sajo. Utrecht: Eleven International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K. 2005. The criminal law and terrorism. In Global anti-terrorism law and policy, ed. V.V. Ramraj, M. Hor, and K. Roach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K., and G. Trotter. 2005. Miscarriages of justice in the war against terrorism. Penn State Law Review 109: 967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rona, G. 2007. An appraisal of US practice relating to “enemy combatants”. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 10: 232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosand, E. 2003. Security Council Resolution 1373, The Counter Terrorism Committee and the fight against terrorism. American Journal of International Law 97: 333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sajo, A. (ed.). 2004. Militant democracy. Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul, B. 2006. Defining terrorism in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, K. 2007. Setting the record straight: Human rights in an era of international terrorism. European Human Rights Law Review 12: 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyn, J. 2003. Guantanamo Bay. International and Comparative Legal Quarterly 53: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suskind, R. 2007. The one percent doctrine. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szasz, P.C. 2002. The Security Council starts legislating. American Journal of International Law 96: 901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadros, V. 2007. Justice and terrorism. New Criminal Law Review 10: 658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tadros, V. 2008. Crime and security. Modern Law Review 71: 940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, M. (ed.). 2009. The ‘militant democracy’ principle in modern democracies. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R., and M. Walport. 2008. Data sharing review. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treschel, S. 2005. Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A. 1996. Extending the harm principle. In Harm and culpability, ed. A.P. Simester and A.T.H. Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tangen Page, M. 1998. Prisons, peace and terrorism. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vranken, M. 1998. Duty to rescue in civil law and common law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 47: 934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 1984. Irish Republic prisoners, political detainees, prisoners of war or common criminals? Irish Jurist 19: 189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 1992a. The role and powers of the army in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland politics and the constitution, ed. B. Hadfield. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 1992b. The prevention of terrorism in British law, 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2006a. Clamping down on terrorism in the United Kingdom. Journal of International Criminal Justice 4: 1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2006b. Intelligence and anti-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom. Crime, Law and Social Change 44: 387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2007a. Keeping control of terrorists without losing control of constitutionalism. Stanford Law Review 59: 1395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2007b. The legal definition of “Terrorism” in United Kingdom law and beyond. Public Law 331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2007c. The treatment of foreign terror suspects. Modern Law Review 70: 427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2008. “Know thine enemy as thyself”: Discerning friend from foe under anti-terrorism laws. Melbourne Law Review 32: 275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2010a. The threat of terrorism and the fate of control orders. Public Law 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2010b. Conscripting the public in terrorism policing: Towards safer communities or a police state? Criminal Law Review 441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2011a. Terrorism and the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. 2011b. The judicialisation of intelligence in legal process. Public Law 235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C., and J. Rehman. 2011. “Prevent” responses to jihadi extremism. In Global anti-terrorism law and policy, 2nd ed, ed. V.V. Ramraj, M. Hor, and K. Roach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C., and K. Starmer. 1999. Miscarriages of justice. London: Blackstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, S. 2007a. Criminalising remote harm and the case of anti-democratic activity. Cardozo Law Review 28: 2697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, S. 2007b. The state’s duty of self defence. In Security and human rights, ed. B.J. Goold and L. Lazarus. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J.J. 2008. Note: The root of all evil: Expanding criminal liability for providing material support to terror. Notre Dame Law Review 84: 471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattad, M.S.-A. 2006. Is terrorism a crime or an aggravating factor in sentencing? Journal of International Criminal Justice 4: 1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissbrodt, D. 2001. The right to a fair trial under the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights. Hague: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. 2001. Hunger-strikes: A prisoner’s right or a “Wicked Folly”? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 40: 285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittes, B. 2008. Law and the long war. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittes, B. (ed.). 2009. Legislating the war on terror: An agenda for reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. 2005. Securing liberty in the face of terror. Journal of Law and Society 32: 507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. 2007. Seeking security by eroding rights. In Security and human rights, ed. B.J. Goold and L. Lazarus. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerrougui, C., et al. 2006. Situation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay. E/CN.4/2006/120, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Cases

Other Sources

  • Act no. 96-647 of 22nd July 1996 Article 2, Official Journal 23 July 1996 (France).

    Google Scholar 

  • Act to Combat International Terrorism 1984 (PL 98-533, 18 USC s.3071) (USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996, PL 104-132, 18 USC s.2339B (USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission Staff Working Document, Synthesis of the Replies from the Member States to the Questionnaire on Criminal Law, Administrative/Procedural Law and Fundamental Rights in the Fight against Terrorism (SEC 2009/225).

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Experts on Terrorism. 2004. ‘Apologie du Terrorisme’ and ‘Incitement to Terrorism’. Strasbourg: CODEXTER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consultation Paper, Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice (Cm.7583, London, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 2005 CETS No 196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Criminal Justice Act 1988 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, What Perceptions do the UK Public have Concerning the Impact of Counter-terrorism Legislation Implemented since 2000? (Home Office Occasional Paper 88, London, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Detention Policy Task Force, Final Report (Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Detention Policy Task Force, Memorandum for the Attorney General and for the Secretary of Defense (Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Action Task Force, Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing http://www.fatf-gafi.org/document/9/0,3343,en_32250379_32236920_34032073_1_1_1_1,00.html.

  • Firearms Act 1968 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Reply to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (2005-06 HL114/HC 888).

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Muslim Prisoners’ Experiences (London, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v Ashcroft 333 F.3d 156 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office, Channel: Supporting individuals vulnerable to recruitment by violent extremists (London, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office, From the Neighbourhood to the National (Cm.7448, London, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office, Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation (18/09, London, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office, Prevent Strategy (Cm.8092, London, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office, Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering International Terrorism (Cm.7547, London, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office, Statistics on Terrorism Arrests and Outcomes Great Britain 11 September 2001 to 31 March 2008 (04/09, Home Office, London, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Homeland Security Act 2002 (PL 107-296) (USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, A Surveillance Society? (2007–08 HC 58, and Government Reply, Cm 7449, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Terrorism and Community Relations (2003-04 HC 165).

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords European Union Committee, Combating Somali Piracy (2009–10 HL 103).

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Surveillance: Citizens and the State (2008–09 HL 18, and Government Reply, Cm 7616, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001, SI 2001/3644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch, Preempting Justice: Counter-Terrorism Laws and Procedure in France (New York, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Humanitarian Law Project v Mukasey 509 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2007), 552 F.3d 916 (9th Cir., 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Humanitarian Law Project v US Department of Treasury 484 F. Supp 2d 1099 (CD Cal., 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law 2002 (Israel).

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Commissioner, A Report on the Surveillance Society (Wilmslow, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004, PL 108-458, 18 U.S.C. s.2339D (USA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Internal Security Act no 74 of 1982, s.54 (South Africa).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Committee on Human Rights, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Prosecution and Pre-Charge Detention (2005-06 HL 240/HC 1576).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (2006-07 HL 26/HC 247).

    Google Scholar 

  • Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Orders, SI 2009/2090, SI 2011/1720 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Commission, Report 237: Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter (2005-06 HC 171).

    Google Scholar 

  • Letter dated 15 August 2003 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2003/818) and UN SCR 1506 of 12 September 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • President Bush, State of the Union Address 20 January 2004 (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html).

  • Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act, 2004 (no.33) (South Africa).

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of a Committee to consider, in the context of civil liberties and human rights, measures to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland (Cmnd.5847, London, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation (RP90/1981, Pretoria, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Commission to consider legal procedures to deal with terrorist activities in Northern Ireland (Cmnd. 5185, London, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Police Interrogation Procedures in Northern Ireland (Cmnd.9497, London, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (A/HRC/13/37, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Report to the General Assembly (A/61/267, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, 4th Report to the General Assembly (A/63/223, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, First Report to the Human Rights Commission, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (E/CN.4/2006/98,2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Close of Detention Facilities and for a Review of Detention Policy Options (Executive Orders 13492 and 13493, 74 FR 4897 and 4901).

    Google Scholar 

  • Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers (Cm 8803, London, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Cmnd 8803, London, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts 1974 and 1976 (Cmnd.7324, London, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v DD (Afghanistan) [2010] EWCA Civ 1407.

    Google Scholar 

  • South Africa Law Commission, Project 105: Report on Review of Security Legislation (Pretoria, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrorism Act 2000 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrorism Act 2000 (Business in the Regulated Sector and Supervisory Authorities) Order 2007, SI 2007/3288 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrorism Act 2000 (Cessation of Effect of Section 76) Order 2002 SI 2002/2141 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrorism Act 2000 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Amendment) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/3398 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrorism Act 2006 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 (New Zealand).

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrorist Surveillance Program (Offices of the Inspectors General, Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program, Report 2009-0013-AS, Washington DC, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Theft Act 1968 (UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Third Money Laundering Directive 2005/60/EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Presidential Order, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, of the 13 November 2001 (66 Federal Register 57831).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Clive Walker (Professor)

Authors
  1. Clive Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clive Walker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Comparative Legal History, University of Valencia, Avda. de los Naranjos, Valencia, 46071, Spain

    Aniceto Masferrer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Walker, C. (2012). The Impact of Contemporary Security Agendas Against Terrorism on the Substantive Criminal Law. In: Masferrer, A. (eds) Post 9/11 and the State of Permanent Legal Emergency. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4062-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation