New anti-terrorism bill published

1 June 2011 by

Updated | As a follow-up to Isabel McArdle’s post on an unsuccessful challenge to a control order, a quick note to say that the long-heralded Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill was published last week. 

The purpose of the bill, first previewed in January by the Counter-terroism review (see my post), is to abolish control orders and make provision for the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures (so-called “TPIMs”). For more information on the human rights controversies surrounding control orders, see my post: Control orders: what are they are why do they matter?

Some useful links for more information on the bill:

The Home Office press release highlights the following features of the bill:

– increased safeguards for the civil liberties of individuals subject to the measures, including:

  • higher test for the measures to be imposed than exists for control orders
  • maximum time limit of two years – further measures can only then be imposed if the person has re-engaged in terrorism

– restrictions that impact on an individual’s ability to follow a normal pattern of daily life will be kept to the minimum necessary to protect the public, and will be proportionate and clearly justified. It will be much clearer what restrictions can and cannot be imposed, including:

  • lengthy curfews will be replaced by a more flexible overnight residence requirement
  • relocation to another part of the country without consent will be scrapped
  • geographical boundaries will be replaced with the more limited power to impose tightly-defined exclusions from particular areas
  • individuals subject to the measures must be permitted a landline and a mobile telephone, and a computer with internet connection

– broad judicial oversight of the system

  • high court permission will be needed to impose the measures (or to immediately confirm measures imposed in urgent cases)
  • there will be a full automatic review of each case in which measures will be imposed
  • rights of appeal for the individual against refusal of a request to revoke or vary the measures

– a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the prospects of prosecuting an individual before measures may be imposed, and a duty to keep the necessity of the measures under review while they are in force

– the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation will publish an annual review of the operation of the system

The bill is expected to receive royal assent by the end of 2011. I have republished the PDF version of the bill below via Scribd. You can click to view it full screen.

View this document on Scribd

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

1 comment;


  1. ObiterJ says:

    At first sight the Bill seems better than the PTA 2005 regime. Just a few initial thoughts:

    The test for the conditions A to E is generally reasonable belief or reasonably considers. Hardly a very demanding test.

    What does “obviously flawed” mean? Could this phrase drag the court into the merits of making an order?

    I am somewhat surprised that the Clause 21 offence is triable either-way. The “mode of trial” would depend on the seriousness of the breach. From the very context – an order aimed at preventing terrorism – the case would only sensibly be seen as very serious though I suppose it is possible to imagine some breaches of lesser significance arising maybe from misunderstanding of the order.

    If the case has to go to Magistrates’ Court then perhaps the Bill should require the trial to be conducted by a District Judge or by a Circuit or High Court Judge brought in for the purpose. (They can sit in Magistrates’ Courts under the Courts Act 2003). If the case goes to Crown Court then would there be jury vetting and how would the evidence be presented?

    Just initial thoughts – will study this Bill a lot more.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: