Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This module examines the counter-terrorism law of the United Kingdom if you like. So
it examines the very specific and particular domestic laws which Britain has brought into
force as a very specific and particular reaction to the phenomenon called terrorism, or which
is defined in British Law at least as terrorism. In that sense we?ll examine four major areas.
Firstly we?ll examine special and extraordinary police powers which have been conferred upon
those authorities in order to respond to terrorism which differ from the ordinary police powers
which would be exercisable in relation to ordinary criminals as it were. Secondly we?ll
examine special executive powers, that is to say powers of the government, special powers
which the government has conferred on itself, conferred on the government through act of
parliament in order t take very special extraordinary executive measures in order to respond to
terrorism. Thirdly we?ll examine various manifestations of special rules in court or special judicial
rules, or special judicial processes, which are used in terrorism trials or terrorism
proceedings, which would not ordinarily be applicable in any other circumstance. And
finally we?ll look at the substantive criminal law, that is to say the special substantive
criminal law. A body of special counter terrorist offenses which have been deliberately created
and defined in order to respond to terrorism. One of the key questions we?re going to have
to address is why have this law at all? All jurisdictions, as the United Kingdom does,
confer power on police. They all have a system of law regulating judicial processes for determining
matters and they all have a body of substantive criminal law offences dealing with things
like ***, damage to property, causing explosions and so on so forth, the actual core elements
included in any definition of terrorism. So that being the case, the question is why have
a special body of law, called counter-terrorism law, creating very special offences and very
special powers in order to react to this notion called terrorism.
And I suppose the key theme that runs through this course then is examining that question
and also the question about the extent to which this special body of law departs from
ordinary law and if it does depart from the ordinary law what are the consequences of
that departure and to what extent is that departure justified?
For example every criminal system will confer police powers on the police concerned, parts
of those powers will involve powers to arrest and detain people and interview them. Ordinarily
there will be some threshold or requirement before you can arrest a person. For instance
you must reasonably suspect them of an offense and there?ll be a series of rules and limitations
of the amount of time you can keep the person in custody prior to taking certain official
action. Furthermore whilst in custody the individual will have various rights, such
as rights to legal advice, rights to inform someone of their arrest and so on. In the
British counter-terrorism law a very special series of rules apply to the arrest of someone
who?s reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation
of an act of terrorism. It?s easier to arrest those people than in the case of an ordinary
criminal. The person can be detained for significantly longer periods of time than is the case with
ordinary criminals, their rights to legal advice and various other procedural protections
provided to suspects can be limited in a way which is not possible in the case of ordinary
suspects. So the question arises why is this so? Is it justified? If it is justified what
are the justifications and their different nature? and is it possible to argue that we
don?t need these laws at all and perhaps the better route to take would be to provide terror
suspects with exactly the same sorts of rights and protections as applied to others.
You can see, of course, in taking that example that there will be difference of opinion about
these matters and this course very much proceeds on the basis that there is no right answer
necessarily to these questions but there are a series of arguments and perspectives. In
studying this course therefore you?ll be expected to equate yourself with the perspectives and
arguments and justifications about a range of different issues of that sort which are
covered in the course. Of course you?ll need to know what the law is but knowing the law
is not the object of the exercise, understanding what the consequences and justifications of
the law as it stands and whether or not it is justified at all is what we want you to
think about. And in the seminars you?ll be expected to engage in debate and discussion
with others, you may have to defend your point of view, you may have to put forward reasons
for your point of view and you may change it in the light of debates and discussions
that you may with other students.