The worrying new anti-terrorism measures that are set to become law – Angela Patrick

2 February 2015 by



The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill begins its final stages in the House of Lords today. This blog considered the Bill on its introduction to the Lords. In the interim, both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords have reported, both recommending significant amendments.

Despite repeat flurries of excitement as a coalition of Peers suggest time and again that most of the controversial Communications Data Bill – popularly known as the Snoopers’ Charter – might be a late-stage drop in; the press has, perhaps regrettably, shown little interest in the Bill.

Since its introduction in late November, the Bill has changed fairly little. Suggestions by the JCHR that the most controversial measures in the Bill – the Temporary Exclusion Order, which would prevent persons with a right of abode from entering the UK except on conditions set by the Secretary of State – might be replaced by a less draconian alternative system of notification that a named individual intended to return were not debated. The changes which the Government have accepted are perhaps unsurprising; responding to calls by both reporting Committees – and by the Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terrorism Legislation – for a degree of judicial oversight to be given to the new powers sought in the Bill:

Seizure of Passports (Part 1, Schedule 1)

The JCHR recommended that a new power to permit police officers and other border officials to seize passports and other travel documents should be subject to a substantive review by a court, after 7 days (Baroness Kennedy has tabled amendments to allow those proposals to be considered again tomorrow).

The Government has refused to concede that the grounds to retain these documents should be subject to statutory review. Ministers explain the Government view that the retention of these documents should not be treated similarly to the power to detain an individual or other counter-terrorism measures; emphasising that individuals would have recourse to judicial review if they wished to challenge the legality of any seizure. A requirement to apply for judicial approval for extended retention for longer than 14 days – where the police and the Secretary of State would be required to show that they were acting expeditiously – was confirmed. This review would not examine whether the grounds for seizure and retention were satisfied. However, the Government conceded an amendment to the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) to ensure that legal aid would be available in connection with extension hearings.

While clarity on legal aid where the police seek to hold travel documents for up to a month is welcome, the Government’s reluctance to accept that the legality of the original decision to seize and retain should be subject to automatic judicial oversight is regrettable. While the Bill provides for the power to be exercised only on “reasonable suspicion”, it is a power which will be exercised “on-the-spot” at a point of departure, with clear implications for the individual stopped at the gate. The new power is supplementary to many existing powers to limit the travel of terrorism suspects, including through the use of TPIMs. Access to judicial review is becoming increasingly difficult. As its ability to act as a realistic safeguard diminishes, the need for Parliament to consider clear statutory safeguards grows more stark.

Terrorism suspects and exclusion from the UK (Part 1)

In the original draft of the Bill, the Government proposed that a person could be subject to an entirely administrative Temporary Exclusion Order (“TEO”), subject again, only to judicial review.

To make a TEO now, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State must ask the court for permission in most cases. In cases certified by the Secretary of State as urgent, a TEO can come into effect without prior judicial authorisation, subject to approval by the court within 7 days.

Both of these judicial stages will require a court to consider whether the Minister’s decision is “obviously flawed” (Clause 3(6)). The Bill also provides that the judges will apply judicial review principles (Clause 3(5)) and that nothing in the Bill should be applied inconsistently with Article 6 ECHR. While, the Minister did not acknowledge Lord Pannick’s stated view that the standard of review would be the ordinary standard applied on judicial review, it will be for the courts to reconcile these conflicting statutory directions in a manner consistent with the protections in the Human Rights Act 1998 (See HL Deb 20 Jan 2015, 1262, and 1264-65).

The Bill now provides for a statutory mechanism for review of the legality of the order and the conditions imposed on an individual once they are back in the UK.   Any challenge to the legality of the TEO from outside the UK must be by way of judicial review.

It was exceptional that the Government sought these powers on a largely administrative basis. It is unsurprising that the need for judicial oversight has been conceded. However, the limitations of the new provision for judicial oversight are worth noting.   The permission of the court – or its approval of an urgent order – can be ex-parte and without notice. Even if notice is provided, it is clear that the proceedings can be subject to a closed material proceeding (“CMP”).   So, even if an individual were aware of the proceedings and were able to instruct counsel from outside the country, they might never have an understanding of the Ministers’ reasons for seeking to exclude them from the UK, if only temporarily.

Ministers have conceded that if an individual faces a threat of torture in a third country, the Secretary of State should not make a TEO (HL Deb, 20 Jan 2015, Col 1309). While that limit is clear from the Human Rights Act 1998; Ministers resisted further statutory clarification. In an era when one of the major political parties seeks to repeal the HRA, that resistance might become more significant after the Bill becomes law.

Whether these measures are proportionate to the risk we face – and whether they will help to keep us safe in practice – has been subject to limited debate (see the HL Second Reading). Ministers have refused to accept further safeguards, including provision for a sunset clause to trigger automatic review of these measures in the future.   However, , the Government will today propose amendments to expand the power of the Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terrorism Legislation, including a power to review these measures.   Yet, it remains as yet unclear how, in future, the advisory role of the Reviewer will relate to the new Privacy and Civil Liberties Board created by the Bill.

Controversial measures will become law

So tomorrow’s debate will see Peers pose further challenge to the limited judicial oversight proposed for passport seizure; over the role of judges in supervising TPIMs imposing enforced relocation and questions raised over the impact of the Bill on individuals working in humanitarian assistance in unstable and dangerous parts of the world. A crucial amendment will seek to limit the impact of new Ministerial powers to direct public agencies to take steps to implement the Government Prevent programme; on the freedom of speech enjoyed by academic institutions.  Regrettably, a substantial part of the debate will again see an attempt to introduce wholesale provisions to legalise the collection and retention of data about us all, without full parliamentary oversight.

Yet, both Houses have now conceded the principle that the most controversial measures in the Bill should become law.   So, before the next election determines the make-up of our next Government, it is clear that it will have available to it an unprecedented power to exclude British citizens – and others with right of abode – from the UK for reasons of national security. Although that power may look somewhat different to that originally envisaged by the Prime Minister during the party conference season, it remains a major step.

Full JUSTICE background briefing on the Bill and its provisions is available here.

All of the amendments proposed to the Bill – and its current draft – are available here.

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

Related posts:

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.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 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 birds directive 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 circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics 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 european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: