The Definition of Terrorism CM 7052 - Official Documents

“The legal response to the outbreak of terrorist activity should be limited to
measures that will enable the security agencies and the police to intervene to
prevent terrorist attacks and to bring criminal charges against those involved
with as few derogations from ordinary criminal procedures as possible.”
26. There are many severe critics of the Terrorism Act 2000 definition. A recent
example is the report “The Rules of the Game”, from the University of Essex 14 .This
report describes the statutory definition as too wide to satisfy the clarity required
for the criminal law; and opines that it “leaves room for political bias and could
be used to prosecute people active in legitimate social or political movements
who are exercising their rights”. As the same report reminds us, Amnesty
International and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 15 , have made
similar comments. However, neither the Essex study nor other broad critics provide
an alternative formulation for a definition to deal with the risk, discussed in the
paragraphs 28-32 below.
27. In a letter to me dated the 22nd August 2006 the Minister of State at the Home
Office, Tony McNulty MP, expressed the view that the current definition is
“comprehensive and effective .... approved following extensive debate in
Parliament ....” He claimed that “there is no evidence that the broadness of the
definition has caused problems in the way it has operated”.With reference to the
discretion to prosecute and use other special powers he said:
14
Blick A, Choudhury T and Weir S, a report by Democratic Audit, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, for the Joseph
Rowntree Reform Trust.
15
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters,28
November 2005, available via www.parliament.uk
–21–