Login
Login

Terrorism Act 2000#Proscribed groups

{{Use British English|date=August 2013}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2020}}

{{Infobox UK legislation

|short_title=Terrorism Act 2000

|type=Act

|parliament=Parliament of the United Kingdom

|long_title=An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.

|statute_book_chapter=2000 c. 11

|introduced_by=

|territorial_extent=United KingdomThe Terrorism Act 2000, section 130(1); this is subject to sections 130(2) to (6) which provide that sections 59 to 61, Part VII and Schedules 5, 15 and 16 do not extend to the United Kingdom.

|royal_assent=20 July 2000

|commencement=

|repeal_date=

|amendments= {{ubl|Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000|Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001|Armed Forces Act 2001|Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001|Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001|Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002|Land Registration Act 2002|Proceeds of Crime Act 2002|Courts Act 2003|Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003|Criminal Justice Act 2003|Extradition Act 2003|Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003|Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003|Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004|Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005|Constitutional Reform Act 2005|Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005|Fraud Act 2006|Terrorism Act 2006|Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006|Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006|Counter-Terrorism Act 2008|Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010|Localism Act 2011|Financial Services Act 2012|Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012|Protection of Freedoms Act 2012|Crime and Courts Act 2013|Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014|Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014|Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015|Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015|Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016|Policing and Crime Act 2017|Criminal Finances Act 2017|Data Protection Act 2018|Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018|Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019|Sentencing Act 2020|Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021|Nationality and Borders Act 2022|Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022|Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023|National Security Act 2023}}

|related_legislation=

|repealing_legislation=

|status= Amended

|original_text=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/enacted

|revised_text=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11

|legislation_history=

|}}

The Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) is the first of a number of general Terrorism Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It superseded and repealed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. It also replaced parts of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/19/terrorism-act|title=A-Z of legislation: Terrorism Act 2000|date=2009-01-19|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-03-28|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}} The powers it provides the police have been controversial, leading to noted cases of alleged abuse, and to legal challenges in British and European courts. The stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Act have been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

Definition of terrorism

Terrorism is defined, in the first section of the Act, as follows:

{{boxquote|Section 1. –

:(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

::(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

::(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation]Words in square brackets inserted by Terrorism Act 2006. or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

::(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial]Word in square brackets inserted by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. or ideological cause.

:(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

::(a) involves serious violence against a person,

::(b) involves serious damage to property,

::(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,

::(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

::(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

:(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.}}

Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised{{cite journal|last=Gearty|first=Conor|title=11 September 2001, Counter-terrorism, and the Human Rights Act|journal=Journal of Law and Society| date=March 2005 |volume=32|issue=1|pages=18–33|doi=10.1111/j.1467-6478.2005.312_1.x}} as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.{{cite web|author=Iris Schaechter |url=http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html |title=UNODC – Terrorism Definitions |date=16 February 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060216050500/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html |archive-date=16 February 2006 }}

Prior to this, terrorism was defined in an Act as a footnote, such as Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 (c. 18) section 2(2):{{cite web|url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/Ukpga_19930018_en_1.htm |title=Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 1993 CHAPTER 18 |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom }}

"acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.

and Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 4) section 20(1):{{cite web|url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890004_en_6.htm |title=Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 4) |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom }}

In this Act "terrorism" means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.

In the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, the criminal offences referred to as terrorism are provided as an exhaustive list of over 70 items.{{cite web|url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960022_en_1|title=Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 1996 CHAPTER 22|publisher=Office of Public Sector Information|access-date=2 December 2009}}

This move to establish a sound definition of terrorism in the law made it possible to build an entirely new set of police and investigatory powers into incidents of this kind, beyond what they could do for ordinary violent offences.

The inclusion in its definition of the phrase or threat mirrors the common law, as it was codified with respect to written words, in 27 Geo. 2. c. 15 (1754) and again in 4 Geo. 4. c. 54 (1823).Sir William Oldnall Russell: "A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors" vol 2, ch.3, p.576-7 (2nd ed, 1828)

Proscribed groups

As in previous Terrorism Acts, such as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, the Home Secretary had the power to maintain a list of "proscribed groups" that they believe are "concerned in terrorism". The act of being a member of, or supporting such a group, or wearing an item of clothing such as "to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation" is sufficient to be prosecuted for a terrorist offence.

Under the act aliases of organizations can be added. For example, Al Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, London School of Sharia and Muslims Against Crusades were added in January 2010 and November 2011 as alternative names for Al Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect (also deemed to be the same organization) and in June 2014 Need4Khilafah, the Shariah Project and the Islamic Dawah Association were added to this list. An alias does not have to be added to the list for prosecution to be possible, provided it can be demonstrated that for all intents and purposes the organization is a proscribed one, and that the person involved has committed a proscribed act.

=List of proscribed international terrorist groups=

{{As of|2024|01|post=,}} the following 80 organisations appeared in Schedule 2 of the Act, to which they have been added periodically since March 2001 by statutory instruments, and are listed under the above heading in the Home Office document 'Proscribed Terrorist Organisations:{{cite web|title=Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2|access-date=29 February 2020|publisher=Government of the United Kingdom}}

{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|

}}

=List of proscribed groups linked to Northern Ireland-related terrorism=

The following 14 organisations have appeared in Schedule 2 of the Act since it came into force{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/2|title=Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 2 (revised)|publisher=Office of Public Sector Information|access-date=28 February 2020}} and are listed under the above heading in the Home Office document 'Proscribed Terrorist Organisations' under the collective description "organisations in Northern Ireland that were proscribed under previous legislation". They are armed paramilitary groups proscribed because of involvement in the Troubles;

=List of formerly proscribed groups=

Provisions

=Section 41 (arrest without warrant)=

Section 41 of the Act provided the police with the power to arrest and detain a person without charge for up to 48 hours if they were suspected of being a terrorist.{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/41 |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |date=15 August 2013|access-date=2016-01-03|title=2000 c. 11 - Part V Suspected terrorists - Section 41}} This period of detention could be extended to up to seven days if the police can persuade a judge that it is necessary for further questioning.{{cite web |url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--w.htm |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |access-date=2023-04-26 |title=Terrorism Act 2000 |lang=en-gb |archive-date=November 29, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051129010159/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--w.htm }}

This was a break from ordinary criminal law where suspects had to be charged within 24 hours of detention or be released. This period was later extended to 14 days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003,{{cite web |url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30044--x.htm#306 |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |access-date=2023-04-26 |title=Criminal Justice Act 2003 |lang=en-gb |archive-date=May 22, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060522192208/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30044--x.htm }} and to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006.

=Stop and search without suspicion=

==Section 44==

The most commonly encountered use of the Act was outlined in Section 44 which enables the police and the Home Secretary to define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize "articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism".{{cite web |url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--f.htm#44 |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom |access-date=2023-04-26 |archive-date=November 20, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051120012113/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--f.htm |title=Terrorism Act 2000 |lang=en-gb}} Unlike other stop and search powers that the police can use, Section 44 does not require the police to have "reasonable suspicion" that an offence has been committed, to search an individual.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/09/police-detain-arrest-kettling|title=How can the police detain you?|last=Welch|first=James|date=9 December 2009|work=The Guardian|access-date=12 December 2009 | location=London}}

In 2009, over 100,000 searches were conducted under the powers, but none of these resulted in people being arrested for terrorism offences. 504 were arrested for other offences.{{cite news|author=Alan Travis |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/28/terrorism-police-stop-search-arrests |title=No terror arrests in 100,000 police counter-terror searches, figures show |work=The Guardian |date=28 October 2010 |access-date=28 October 2010 }}

In January 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It held that the rights under Article 8 of two people stopped in 2003 outside the ExCeL convention centre in London, which at the time was hosting a military equipment exhibition, had been breached. The Court found the powers were "not sufficiently circumscribed" and lacked "adequate legal safeguards against abuse", contrary to a 2003 High Court judgment upheld at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.{{cite news

| title = Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by European court

|work=BBC News

| date = 12 January 2010

| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453878.stm

| access-date = 12 January 2010}}

Pending new powers in the Protection of Freedoms Bill (see Section 47A), Theresa May made a remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998 (the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011), which had the effect of repealing sections 44, 45, 46 and most of section 47.{{cite web|title=Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011|url=http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/terrorism-act-remedial-order/|website=GOV.UK |publisher=Home Office|access-date=4 May 2011}}

{{quote|Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

|author=London Metropolitan Police Service

|source=Photography Advice}}

==Section 47A==

As discussed above, since 18 March 2011 section 44 has been treated as repealed. It has been replaced with a new section 47A by the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011. Under the new provisions, searches can only be carried out as follows:

A senior police officer must make an authorisation in relation to a specified area or place. He can make such an authorisation only if he:{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/631/made |title=Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011 |publisher=Government of the United Kingdom }}

  • reasonably suspects that an act of terrorism will take place, and
  • considers that:
  • the authorisation is necessary to prevent such an act,
  • the specified area or place is no greater than is necessary to prevent such an act, and
  • the duration of the authorisation is no longer than is necessary to prevent such an act.

When such an authorisation is in force, any constable in uniform can, in the specified area or place, stop:

  • a vehicle, and search:
  • the vehicle,
  • the driver of the vehicle,
  • a passenger in the vehicle, and
  • anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger,
  • a pedestrian, and search:
  • the pedestrian, and
  • anything carried by the pedestrian.

But the power to search can only be used for the purpose of discovering whether there is anything which may constitute evidence that:

  • the vehicle concerned is being used for the purposes of terrorism, or that
  • the person concerned is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

The power conferred by such an authorisation may be exercised whether or not the constable reasonably suspects that there is such evidence. A person or vehicle searched under this power may be detained for as long as is reasonably required. A person who is searched may be required to remove their headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves, but nothing else whilst in public. If requested, a form must be given stating that the person/vehicle was stopped.

An authorisation can be given by an Assistant Chief Constable (or if the area is in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London, then a Commander of the Metropolitan Police/City of London Police). Authorisations can also be given by the Assistant Chief Constables of:

If given verbally, authorisations must be confirmed in writing as soon as reasonably practicable, and in either case must be notified to the Home Office as soon as reasonably practicable. Authorisations must be confirmed by the Home Office within 48 hours of their being made, or they expire automatically. If confirmed, an authorisation can only last for up to 14 days. An authorisation can be cancelled at any time, or restricted in respect of the time it ends or the area which it covers, but it cannot be expanded. New authorisations can be made regardless of whether previous authorisations exist, or have been cancelled or have expired.

===Section 58 – Collection of information===

This section creates the offence, liable to a prison term of up to fifteen years, to collect, possess, or access, "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Sections 57–58: Possession offences: Section 57 is dealing with possessing articles for the purpose of terrorist acts. Section 58 is dealing with collecting or holding information that is of a kind likely to be useful to those involved in acts of terrorism. In 2019, the Section was amended to include accessing such information online in the definition of the offence. Section 57 includes a specific intention, section 58 does not.{{cite web|url=http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Terrorism_Act_2000#Sections_57-58:_Possession_offences |title=WikiCrimeLine Terrorism Act 2000 Sections 57 58: Possession offences |publisher=Wikicrimeline.co.uk }}

Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, 23, from Wolverhampton, is believed to be the first person convicted of collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist, including the al-Qaeda publication Inspire.{{cite news|title=Blogger who encouraged murder of MPs jailed|date=29 July 2011|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-14344199|access-date=1 August 2011}}{{cite press release|title=Online extremist sentenced to 12 years for soliciting murder of MPs|date=29 July 2011|publisher=West Midlands Police|url=http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/wolverhampton/news/newsitem.asp?id=4066|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130521190648/http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/wolverhampton/news/newsitem.asp?id=4066|archive-date=21 May 2013}}

=Part 7=

Part 7, comprising sections 65 to 113, contained particular provisions applying to Northern Ireland, that were to require parliamentary approval on an annual basis by means of a statutory instrument to continue in force. The part replaced previous provisions under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

Part 7 was succeeded by the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006, which in turn was succeeded by the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007.

==Section 75 (trials without a jury)==

Section 75 provided for bench trials instead of jury trials in Northern Ireland for scheduled offences, continuing the system of Diplock courts first established in 1973.

==Schedules==

The act has 16 Schedules.UK Legislation, [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents/enacted Terrorism Act 2000: Schedules], accessed on 7 April 2025

Penalties

From Terrorism Act 2000{{cite web |title=Terrorism Act 2000 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11 |website=UK Legislation |publisher=HM Government |access-date=7 June 2017 }}

  • Section 11 membership of a proscribed organisation - 10 years or a fine or both
  • Section 12 support of a proscribed organisation - 10 years or a fine or both
  • Section 13: "A person in a public place commits an offence if he (a)wears an item of clothing, or (b)wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation." - 6 months or a statutory fine
  • Section 15 fund raising for a proscribed organisation
  • Section 16 using money or property for terrorism
  • Section 17 funding terrorism
  • Section 18 money laundering to aid terrorism
  • Section 19 failure to disclose information - 5 years or a fine or both
  • Section 21A failure to disclose information: regulated sector - 5 years or a fine or both
  • Section 21D tipping off: regulated sector - 2 years or a fine or both
  • Section 22 penalties for an offence in sections 15 to 18 – 14 years or a fine or both
  • Section 36 disobeying a constable in a cordoned area - 3 months or a fine or both
  • Section 38B failure to disclose information about an act of terrorism - 5 years or a fine or both
  • Section 39 unauthorised disclosure of information - 5 years or a fine or both
  • Section 47 failing to stop when required by a constable - 6 months or a level 5 fine or both{{rp |Check latest amendments}}
  • Section 51 parking in a prohibited area - 3 months or level 4 fine or both
  • Section 54 receiving or giving weapons training for terrorism - 10 years or a fine or both
  • Section 56 directing terrorist organisation - life imprisonment
  • Section 57 possession for terrorist purposes - 15 years or a fine or both
  • Section 58 collection of information to aid terrorism - 15 years or a fine or both
  • Section 58A eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces - 10 years or a fine or both
  • Section 87 preventing an examination of documents - two years or a fine or both
  • Section 103 (crown official) possessing or communicating or collecting information useful for terrorism - 10 years or a fine or both

=Incitement crimes=

  • Section 59 inciting terrorism overseas: England and Wales - same penalty as under the appropriate Act
  • (a) murder,
  • (b) an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent),
  • (c) an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison),
  • (d) an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and
  • (e) an offence under section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (endangering life by damaging property).
  • Section 60 inciting terrorism overseas: Northern Ireland - same penalty as under the appropriate Act
  • (a) murder,
  • (b) an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent),
  • (c) an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison),
  • (d) an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and
  • (e) an offence under Article 3(2) of the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (endangering life by damaging property).
  • Section 61 inciting terrorism overseas: Scotland - same penalty as under the appropriate Act
  • (a) murder,
  • (b) assault to severe injury, and
  • (c) reckless conduct which causes actual injury.

Stop and search, arrest and conviction rates

Between July and December 2007, the BBC reported that more than 14,000 people and vehicles had been stopped and searched by British Transport Police in Scotland.{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7146080.stm|title=Random searches on rail network |date=15 December 2007|work=BBC News|access-date=2 December 2009}} In 2008 the Metropolitan Police conducted 175,000 searches using Section 44, these included over 2313 children (aged 15 or under), of whom 58 were aged under 10.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/aug/18/met-police-stop-search-children|title=Metropolitan police used anti-terror laws to stop and search 58 under-10s|last=Dodd|first=Vikram|date=18 August 2009|work=The Guardian|access-date=12 December 2009 | location=London}}

Up to early 2004, around 500 people are believed to have been arrested under the Act; seven people had been charged. By October 2005 these figures had risen to 750 arrested with 22 convictions; the then current Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said "the statistics illustrate the difficulty of getting evidence to bring prosecution".{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhaff/515/5101105.htm|work=Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence |title=Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60–73)|author=Charles Clarke and Mr Benyon|date=11 October 2005|publisher=UK Parliament|access-date=2 December 2009}}

Figures released by the Home Office on 5 March 2007 show that 1,126 people were arrested under the Act between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2006. Of the total 1,166 people arrested under the Act or during related police investigations, 221 were charged with terrorism offences, and 40 convicted.{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/terrorism/story/0,,2027077,00.html|title=1,166 anti-terror arrests net 40 convictions|agency=Press Association|date=5 March 2007|work=The Guardian|access-date=2 December 2009 | location=London}}

Noted arrests under Section 58 include Abu Bakr Mansha in December 2005, and the eight suspects involved in the 2004 financial buildings plot.

Reactions and analysis

In his comprehensive commentary on this Act and other anti-terrorism legislation, Professor Clive Walker of the University of Leeds comments:[http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9781841741833 The Anti-Terrorism Legislation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929123528/http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9781841741833 |date=29 September 2007 }}

The Terrorism Act 2000 represents a worthwhile attempt to fulfil the role of a modern code against terrorism, though it fails to meet the desired standards in all respects. There are aspects where rights are probably breached, and its mechanisms to ensure democratic accountability and constitutionalism are even more deficient, as discussed in the section on 'Scrutiny' earlier in this chapter. It is also a sobering thought, proffered by the Home Affairs Committee, that the result is that 'This country has more anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any other developed democracy.' (Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 2001 (2001–02 HC 351) para.1). But at least that result initially flowed from a solemnly studied and carefully constructed legislative exercise.

The Terrorism Act 2000 is subject to annual review by the [https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/ Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation]. The Independent Reviewer's reports are submitted to the Home Secretary, laid before Parliament and published in full.

Alleged abuses

The laws have been criticised for allowing excessive police powers leaving scope for abuse. There have been various cases in which the laws have been used in scenarios criticised for being unrelated to fighting terrorism. Critics allege there is systematic abuse of the act against protesters.

Many instances have been reported in the media of innocent people who have been stopped and searched under section 44 of the Act. According to Home Office guidelines, police are required to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is acting as a terrorist.{{cite web |url=http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/012-2009/ |title=Photography and Counter-Terrorism legislation |date=18 August 2009 |publisher=The Home Office |access-date=30 November 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100329112945/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/012-2009/ |archive-date=29 March 2010 }} Critics of the Act claim that, in practice, police are using Section 44 emergency powers as "an additional tool in their day-to-day policing kit" to stop and search innocent citizens without reasonable grounds, going beyond the original intention of Parliament.{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3886833.stm|title= Pair seek unlawful search ruling|work=BBC News|access-date=2 December 2009 |date=12 July 2004 }}{{cite web |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml |title=Section 44 – Terrorism Act 2000 |publisher=Liberty |access-date=2 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511160628/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml |archive-date=11 May 2008 }}

One of the issues arising from the Section 44 authorisations has been the use of the Act to detain lawful protestors or other people who are in the vicinity of demonstrations. Critics claim the Act gives police extended powers to deter or prevent peaceful protest.{{cite web |url=http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/index.shtml|title=Free Speech & Protest |publisher=Liberty|access-date=2 December 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060929145108/http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/index.shtml |archive-date=29 September 2006 }}

File:DemonstrationAgainstAntiTerrorismLawLondon23Jan.jpg

Problematic use of Section 44 powers has not been restricted to political protestors; according to reports, journalists, amateur and professional photographers, trainspotters, politicians and children have been subject to stop and search under suspicion of being involved in terrorist activities while engaged in lawful acts such as photography. The taking of photographs in public spaces is permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (freedom of panorama), and while the Terrorism Act does not prohibit such activity, critics have alleged misuse of the powers of the Act to prevent lawful photography.{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7351252.stm|title= Innocent photographer or terrorist?|last=Geoghegan |first=Tom |date=17 April 2008 |work=BBC News |access-date=30 November 2009 }} (Further restrictions on photography have, however, been introduced with the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008)

Disquiet among the police and government about Section 44 increased; in an interview on BBC Radio 4's programme iPM, Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, remarked that the Act was not clear about police and that a lack of training for police officers had led to some officers being "overzealous" in implementing the Act.{{cite web|title=Terror Act: Police attack government over photography in public |url=http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/terror_act_police_attack_government_over_photography_in_public_news_254852.html|work=Amateur Photographer |access-date=14 December 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081204134752/http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Terror_Act_Police_attack_government_over_photography_in_public_news_254852.html |archive-date=4 December 2008 }} Vernon Coaker, the Minister of State stated on 20 April 2009 that, "counter-terrorism measures should only be used for counter-terrorism purposes".{{cite web |url=http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Coaker_reportresponse200409.pdf |title=Demonstrating Respect for Rights? A human rights approach to protest policing |access-date=2009-05-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090618192800/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Coaker_reportresponse200409.pdf |archive-date=18 June 2009 }}

In December 2009, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) issued a warning to police chiefs to stop using Section 44 powers to target photographers, whether tourists, amateurs or professionals, stating that the practice was "unacceptable".{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-uturn-on-photographers-and-antiterror-laws-1834626.html |title=Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws |date=5 December 2009 |work=The Independent |access-date=9 December 2009 |location=London |first1=Jerome |last1=Taylor |first2=Mark |last2=Hughes }} As of 2011, the Section 44 powers effectively no longer exist (see above), and police must "reasonably" suspect an individual of involvement in terrorism before intervening.{{cite web |title=Photography advice |url=http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm |work=Metropolitan Police website |access-date=14 December 2011 |archive-date=21 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111221003540/http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm |url-status=dead }}

=Incidents=

==General==

  • In October 2005, Sally Cameron was held for four hours after being arrested under the act for walking on a cycle path in a controlled port area in Dundee owned by Forth Ports. While cyclists were free to pass through the port zone, she was arrested and detained because she was a pedestrian and under suspicion of being a terrorist.

{{quote |I've been walking to work every morning for months and months to keep fit. One day, I was told by a guard on the gate that I couldn't use the route any more because it was solely a cycle path and he said, if I was caught doing it again, I'd be arrested...The next thing I knew, the harbour master had driven up behind me with a megaphone, saying, 'You're trespassing, please turn back'. It was totally ridiculous. I started laughing and kept on walking. Cyclists going past were also laughing...But then two police cars roared up beside me and cut me off, like a scene from Starsky and Hutch, and officers told me I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act. The harbour master was waffling on and (saying that), because of September 11, I would be arrested and charged.{{cite news |title=Two wheels: good. Two legs: terrorist suspect |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060103115321/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date =3 January 2006 |work=The Times |access-date=1 January 2008 |location=London |first=David |last=Lister |date=17 October 2005 }}}}

  • In July 2008, anti-terror police held a 12-year-old autistic boy with cerebral palsy and his parents whilst travelling on the Eurotunnel Shuttle rail service under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act. The child's mother was taken to an interrogation room and questioned on suspicion of child trafficking and released without charge. Kent Police later apologised for the incident.{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7520598.stm |title=Terror police detain disabled boy|date=23 July 2008 |work=BBC News |access-date=30 November 2009 |first=Sally|last=Chidzoy }}
  • In August 2013, while travelling home from a visit to Germany, carrying work in progress relating to classified US government documents to Glenn Greenwald in Brazil, David Miranda, 28, was detained by the Metropolitan Police Service at London's Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.{{cite news |last=Savage |first=Charlie |title=Britain Detains Partner of Reporter Tied to Leaks |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html |access-date=18 August 2013 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=18 August 2013 |author2=Michael Schwirtz |author-link=Charlie Savage (author) }}{{cite news |title=US given 'heads up' on David Miranda detention|work=BBC News |date=19 August 2013 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23761918 }}

==Section 12==

Journalist Richard Medhurst was arrested under section 12 in August 2024. His electronic devices were seized and he was ordered to surrender his passwords to allow police to gain access to the data on his devices. Medhurst refused to provide the passwords. His arrest was condemned by the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists. Rebecca Vincent from Reporters Sans Frontières said the seizure of a journalist's equipment during an arrest "at best intimidates journalists working on sensitive topics, and at worst it compromises the protection of journalistic sources".{{cite web |last1=Maurizi |first1=Stefania |title=British journalist could face years in prison for refusing to hand over his passwords to the police |url=https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/in-edicola/articoli/2025/01/02/british-journalist-could-face-years-in-prison-for-refusing-to-hand-over-his-passwords-to-the-police/7822432/ |website=Il Fatto Quotidiano |access-date=3 January 2025 |language=it-IT |date=2 January 2025 }}

==Section 44==

{{multiple image

| align = right

| direction = vertical

| header = Photographic subjects questioned under anti-terror laws

| width = 200

| image1 = Wimbledon station main building.JPG

| alt1 = Wimbledon station main entrance

| caption1 = Wimbledon railway station

| image2 =St_pauls_and_millennium_bridge.jpg

| alt2 = dome of St Paul's Cathedral

| caption2 = St Paul's Cathedral

| image3 = Christ Church Greyfriars 2.jpg

| alt3 = Christ Church Greyfriars with bank building in shot

| caption3 = Christ Church Greyfriars

| image4 = Heading west - geograph.org.uk - 1659252.jpg

| alt4 = Railway locomotive photographed en route to Milford Haven

| caption4 = Railway locomotive, Milford Haven

}}

  • In September 2003, two people, Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton, intending to protest against the Defence Systems Equipment International (DSEI) show in London's Docklands, were stopped and searched under the Act. Quinton, who is a journalist, was ordered by police to stop filming the protest. The pressure group Liberty took the case to High Court where the Judge ruled in favour of the police.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/oct/31/armstrade.terrorism |title=Arms fair protesters lose legal challenge |date=31 October 2003 |work=The Guardian|access-date=2 December 2009 |location=London }} Appeals to the Court of Appeal, and, in March 2006, to the House of Lords, failed. The case was then taken to the European Court of Human Rights, on the grounds of an alleged violation of Articles 5, 8, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court ruled that the stop-and-search powers of the police constituted a violation of the right to privacy.{{cite news |title=Stop and search powers illegal, European court rules |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal |access-date=15 December 2011 |date=12 January 2010 |work=The Guardian |first=Alan |last=Travis }}
  • Walter Wolfgang, an 82-year-old from London, was removed from the 2005 Labour Party conference for heckling Jack Straw. Wolfgang had shouted that Straw's policy on Iraq was "nonsense." When Wolfgang tried to re-enter the conference, he was stopped by police under the Terrorism Act, but was not arrested.{{Cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4291388.stm|title=Labour issues apology to heckler |date=28 September 2005 |work=BBC News |access-date=9 April 2020 |language=en-GB }} "The Terrorism Act was introduced by Tony Blair with the promise that it would be used only in the gravest of cases," James Ball complained in The Guardian in 2012, referencing Wolfgang's incident.{{Cite news |last=Ball |first=James |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/02/surveillance-state-coalition-email-social-media |title=The surveillance state: growing under a coalition that pledged to reverse it {{!}} James Ball|date=2012-04-02 |work=The Guardian |access-date=2020-04-09 |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 }}
  • Over 1,000 anti-war protesters, were stopped and required to empty their pockets, on their way to RAF Fairford (used by American B-52 bombers during the Iraq conflict).{{cite news |title=The police must end their abuse of anti-terror legislation |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/03/do0304.xml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051231215407/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/10/03/do0304.xml |url-status=dead |archive-date=31 December 2005 |work=The Daily Telegraph |access-date=1 January 2008 |location=London |first=Philip |last=Johnston |date=3 October 2005 }}
  • During the 2005 G8 protests in Auchterarder, Scotland, a cricketer on his way to a match was stopped at King's Cross station in London under Section 44 powers and questioned over his possession of a cricket bat.
  • In October 2008, police stopped a 15-year-old schoolboy in south London who was taking photographs of Wimbledon railway station for his school geography project. He was questioned under suspicion of being a terrorist. His parents raised concerns that his personal data could be held on a police database for up to six years.{{cite web |url=http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/terrorism_act_photography_fears_spark_police_response_news_271070.html |title=Terrorism Act: Photography fears spark police response |date=30 October 2008 |work=Amateur Photographer |access-date=30 November 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081206183303/http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/terrorism_act_photography_fears_spark_police_response_news_271070.html |archive-date=6 December 2008}}
  • In January 2009, Member of Parliament Andrew Pelling was questioned after photographing roadworks near a railway station{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/4144210/Tory-MP-stopped-and-searched-by-police-for-taking-photos-of-cycle-path.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090223201420/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/4144210/Tory-MP-stopped-and-searched-by-police-for-taking-photos-of-cycle-path.html|url-status=dead |archive-date=23 February 2009 |title=Tory MP stopped and searched by police for taking photos of cycle path |date=6 January 2009 |work=The Daily Telegraph |access-date=30 November 2009 |location=London }}
  • In April 2009, a man in Enfield was questioned under Section 44 for photographing a police car that he considered was being driven inappropriately along a public footpath. The police claimed (incorrectly) that the act made it illegal to take photographs of police officers and vehicles.{{cite news |url=http://www.enfieldindependent.co.uk/news/4289832.Man_questioned_under_terrorism_law_after_taking_picture_of_police_car_in_park/|title=Man questioned under terrorism law after taking picture of police car in park |last=Cosgrove |first=Sarah |date=14 April 2009 |work=Enfield Independent |access-date=2 December 2009 }}
  • Trainspotters have frequently been subjected to stop and search. Between 2000 and 2009, police used powers under the Act to stop 62,584 people at railway stations.{{Cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/22/british-transport-police-crime|title = Police seek new rights for searching train passengers |website=TheGuardian.com |date = 22 January 2009 }}
  • In November 2009, BBC photographer Jeff Overs was searched and questioned by police outside the Tate Modern art gallery for photographing the sunset over St Paul's Cathedral, under suspicion of preparing for a terrorist act. Overs lodged a formal complaint with the Metropolitan Police.{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8384972.stm |title=BBC photographer on being stopped by police |date=29 November 2009 |work=The Andrew Marr Show |access-date=30 November 2009 }}{{cite news |url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23776068-bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do |title=BBC man in terror quiz for photographing St Paul's sunset |last=Davenport |first=Justin |date=27 November 2009 |work=London Evening Standard |access-date=30 November 2009 |location=London |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091130161651/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23776068-bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do |archive-date=30 November 2009 }}
  • In December 2009, renowned architectural photographer Grant Smith was searched by a group of City of London Police officers under Section 44 because he was taking photographs of Christ Church Greyfriars; although he was working on public ground, the church's proximity to the Bank of America City of London branch caused a bank security guard to call the police.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/08/police-search-photographer-terrorism-powers |title=Police stop church photographer under terrorism powers |last=Booth |first=Robert|date=8 December 2009 |work=The Guardian|access-date=9 December 2009 | location=London}}
  • In June 2010, Metropolitan Police officers attempted to prevent a 15-year-old boy from photographing an Armed Forces Day parade in Romford, East London, citing "antisocial behaviour" and the Terrorism Act. A police misconduct hearing held in December 2011 found that the police had no legal power to prevent the teenager from taking pictures and that the police inspector involved in the incident had used abusive language in calling the boy "silly", "gay" and "stupid". The boy was awarded compensation and given an apology.{{cite web |title=Photographer wins police payout over lawful pics |url=http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographer_wins_police_payout_over_lawful_pics_news_310784.html |work=Amateur Photographer |access-date=13 December 2011 |date=12 December 2011|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120108032807/http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographer_wins_police_payout_over_lawful_pics_news_310784.html |archive-date=8 January 2012 }}{{cite news |title=Police apologise for gay jibe against photographer |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8951188/Police-apologise-for-gay-jibe-against-photographer.html |access-date=13 December 2011 |newspaper=The Telegraph |date=12 December 2011 |location=London |first=Richard |last=Alleyne }}
  • In October 2011, a man was challenged by security staff in the Braehead Shopping Centre in Glasgow after taking photographs of his own four-year-old daughter eating an ice cream in the centre. He was held by Strathclyde Police under the Terrorism Act and eventually released without charge.{{cite news |title=Row over photo in shopping centre |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15236758 |access-date=13 December 2011 |work=BBC News |date=10 October 2011 }}

=Schedule 7=

  • Paul Golding was arrested after visiting Russia in October 2019. Paul Golding refused to provide PIN codes to his phone and laptop at Heathrow Airport and so he was arrested at the airport and convicted in February 2020 with a Conditional Discharge for 9 months and ordered to pay £21 in Victim surcharge and £750 in costs.{{cite news |title=Britain First leader Paul Golding convicted under terrorism law |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/20/britain-first-leader-paul-golding-convicted-under-terrorism-law |access-date=21 February 2023 |work=The Guardian |date=20 May 2020 }}
  • British journalist Kit Klarenberg, who works for The Grayzone, was detained at Luton airport on 17 May 2023. He was interrogated for over five hours about his reports on the British government and intelligence services, his work for The Grayzone and his opinions about the British government and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. His electronic devices, bank cards and memory cards were taken by police, who fingerprinted him, took DNA swabs, and photographed him.{{cite web |title=Grayzone journalist detained by counter-terrorism police on arrival to London |url=https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/grayzone-journalist-detained-counter-terrorism-police-arrival-london |website=Morning Star |access-date=6 June 2023 |language=en |date=31 May 2023 }} The National Union of Journalists expressed grave concern over his arrest.{{cite web |title=NUJ expresses concern over detention of journalist Kit Klarenberg |url=https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource/nuj-expresses-concern-over-detention-of-journalist-kit-klarenberg.html |website=NUJ |access-date=6 June 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230602131201/https://www.nuj.org.uk/resource/nuj-expresses-concern-over-detention-of-journalist-kit-klarenberg.html#selection-1251.0-1251.66 |archive-date=2 June 2023 |date=2 June 2023 }}

Amendments

Section 6 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 made amendments to the act.

See also

References

{{reflist|30em}}

External links

  • [https://web.archive.org/web/20090315200444/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/en/ukpgaen_20000011_en_1 Explanatory notes] to the Terrorism Act 2000, from the Office of Public Sector Information.
  • [https://web.archive.org/web/20060909002234/http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/independent-reviews/ Home Office independent reviews of the Act]
  • [https://web.archive.org/web/20061008110343/http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/independent-reviews/tact-2005-review Lord Carlile's review of the Act in 2005]
  • [https://web.archive.org/web/20070428115653/http://www.counter-terrorism-law.org/Carliledefterror1.htm Review of definition of “Terrorism” in British Law published]
  • [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7 Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7 Port and Border Controls]

Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 2000

Category:Law enforcement in the United Kingdom

Category:Counterterrorism in the United Kingdom

Category:Terrorism laws in the United Kingdom

Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland)

Category:2000 in Northern Ireland

Category:English criminal law

Category:Human rights in the United Kingdom

Category:Censorship in the United Kingdom

Category:East Turkestan independence movement

Category:Constitutional laws of the United Kingdom