Exploring Legal Dimensions of Terrorism

A) The act of terrorism is not something new to the 20th century. However, in respect to several incidents which includes the horror of London Bombing and the destruction of twin towers, all the countries have finally understood the urgency to legislate necessary law and order to combat the organizational terrorism that is growing across the world herein. Almost all the developed and developing countries in the world have introduced several provisions, legislations in relation to combat terrorism in the recent times. Thus, considering the abovementioned case study in relation to terrorism herein, we shall critically analyse the circumstances of the abovementioned case in accordance to the relevant legal issues, legislations and case laws herein. If you require law dissertation help, navigating through these complexities can be facilitated with expert guidance and support.

Relevant Legal Issue

In the given case study, Peter, being a journalist, has spent two years fighting the ISIS in Iraq and after being returned to UK, he was stopped at the airport where he was asked several questions. Peter was also asked to give in his email password and phone password which he refused and subsequently asked for a solicitor. However, Peter was charged to appear before a court.

The relevant legal issues involved in this abovementioned case study are as follows:

Whether the customs and the immigration officers at the airport have enough authority to conduct a “stop and search” procedure?

Did Peter commit an offence by not providing his passwords to electronic device at the time of such examination?

Did Peter reserve the right to solicitor at the time of such examination?

Is the detention of Peter is lawful and if he is charged to appear before the court, does it contravene his Human Rights?

Relevant provisions of legislations and case laws

Thus, as it has been already mentioned in the previous section and the relevant legal issues of the case study has been mentioned extensively, we shall herein discuss the relevant legal provisions which shall be applicable in the above case study and any relevant case laws to that effect as well.

Terrorism Act, 2000

Schedule 7 of Terrorism Act, 2000 provides the customs and the immigrations officers or any designated port officers with power to examine, investigate or conduct a “stop and search” procedure on people who are essentially crossing the border of the United Kingdom herein. Thus, under the this schedule, the officers employed at the borders are given extensive powers to investigate a person and unlike section 47A of the Terrorism Act, 2000, the officers of the ports do not need to provide the person detained with any “reasonable ground for suspicion”. They can ask for production of any document, materials or electronic devices in possession of the person detained and a person can be detained under schedule for a time period of 9 hours herein.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014

In the year of 2012, it was suggested that schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 operates in arbitrary manner and thus an operational consultation was launched which in turn provided with an insight that schedule 7 of the Act of 2000 is discriminatory and thus it was further amended by schedule 9 of the Act of 2014 which provided that the person shall not be subjected to “stop and search” unless there is a reasonable suspicion present and the detention time was reduced to six hours. Also, to detain a person for more than one hour herein, the seal of the senior officer was required. Further, the person detained reserves the absolute right to ask for a solicitor under schedule 9 of the Act of 2014.

1. The Terrorism Act, 2000, sch. 7
2. Home Office, 'Review of the Operation of Schedule 7: A Public Consultation' (Home Office, London, Sep 2012)

Protection of Freedom Act, 2012

The Protection of Freedom Act, 2012, herein protects the rights of the citizens who presumably harassed unnecessary under the Terrorism Act, 2000 and this section repeals several sections of the abovementioned Act of 2000 as well.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984

The PACE code of 1984 provides a person arrested with the right to have a solicitor present when arrested and the officer in charge cannot refuse such right. Also, any person arrested under this Code shall be accompanied by a solicitor, if the person claims, before he is charged to appear in front of the courts.

Beghal v. DPP, [2015] UKSC 49

In the instant case the appellant was held and investigated when she was returning from Paris after visiting her husband and she was charged under Terrorism Act, 2000, schedule 7, para 18. She sued the authority under article 5, 6 and 8 of the ECHR herein.

1. Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014, sch. 9, para.3
2. Ibid, sch. 9, para.2(3)(4)
3. Ibid, sch. 9, para.5(6)
4. The Protection of Freedom Act, 2012, s. 59
5. Terrorism Act, 2000, s. 44 to 47
6. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, s.5
7. “The appellants husband is Djamel Beghal, a man who confessed to conspiring to destroy the U.S embassy in Paris. He is also attributed as a mentor to those who committed the 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting”

Gillan & Quinton v United Kingdom, [2010] ECHR 28

In the instant case, where the appellant were denied any movement or any other right which were expressly reserved under the schedule 7, as repealed by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014 herein, was found to be in contradiction to Human Rights reserved under ECHR herein.

Application of the abovementioned Legal Provisions

If we carefully apply the abovementioned legal provisions as discussed herein to the given case study, it is to be found that the airport authority had the absolute right to conduct a search as Peter, being a journalist, recently returned from one of the countries that were infected with ISIS. Thus, under Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014, the authority had reasonable suspicion to detain the person for an hour.

After he was being interrogated for an hour, he was asked for the access to the electronic device which Peter refused and under the Terrorism Act, 2000, it was held to be an offence. However, under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 as repealed by schedule 9 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014, Peter is entitled to be accompanied by a solicitor before he is charged in front of the court.

Thus, as it was held in the case of Gillan & Quinton v United Kingdom, Peter was refused to have his rights exercised which were to be given as a leaflet under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 herein. Thus, under article 8 of the ECHR, his human rights have been violated herein.

Conclusion

---

1. ECHR, art. 8
2. Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014, sch.9, para.3
3. Terrorism Act, 2000, sch.7, para 18
4. Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014, sch. 9, para.5(6)
5. [2010] ECHR 28

As the authorities had enough suspicion under the Terrorism Act, 2000 and as Peter refused to provide them an access to his electronic device, the authority were entitled to arrest him but Peter was also entitled to have his solicitor at the time of interrogation which he was refused to be given. Thus, his human rights stand to be violated under article 8 of the ECHR herein.

Dig deeper into Exploring Definitions of Religion with our selection of articles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Legislations

Terrorism Act, 2000

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014

Protection of Freedom Act, 2012

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984

European Convention on Human Rights; signed on 4th November, 1950 (came into force 03 September, 1953); 189 UNTS 137

Journal/Reports

Home Office, 'Review of the Operation of Schedule 7: A Public Consultation' (Home Office, London, Sep 2012)

Case Laws

Beghal v. DPP, [2015] UKSC 49

Gillan & Quinton v United Kingdom, [2010] ECHR 28

Treaty

European Convention on Human Rights; signed on 4th November, 1950 (came into force 03 September, 1953); 189 UNTS 137

B) The UK law on hate speech and free speech always has a blurry line between them. While United Kingdom has clear laws on the both of the subject, there has been several confusion regarding the difference between the two and how much of a free speech shall be allowed in the ambit of public screening and what extent of free speech shall be considered strictly as hate speech herein.

Thus, in respect to the abovementioned case study herein, we shall critically analysis the involvement of freedom of speech and the contents of hate speech, if any and also shall discuss the abovementioned case study in reference to the relevant legal issues, legislations and case laws herein.

Relevant Legal Issues

In the abovementioned case study herein, Brendan who is an activist of the SAORADH party makes a presentation in the Leeds University, before the Irish Students Union for the purpose of donation. Harry, who was attending Brendan’s presentation, found the language used by Brendan in refer to ‘the Brits’ quite disturbing and discriminatory herein. Thus, the main legal issues which can be deduced from the abovementioned case study are as follows:

Whether Brendan exercised his freedom of speech in facilitating a political ideology that he supports?

Whether Harry’s claim is right at pointing Brendan’s speech as problematic and whether Brendan’s reference to the British is considered to be a hate speech herein?

Relevant Legislations, legal provisions and case laws

In reference to the given case study herein, we shall look into the legislations and legal provisions relating to the freedom of speech in the nature of politics and what are the laws which operate in the United Kingdom to control the hate speech against a certain race herein.

Human Rights Act, 1998

The Human Rights Act of 1988 establishes a clear section and provision which controls and provides certain direction in relation to the freedom of speech which shall be referred in the case of political speech as well herein. Although, traditionally English law had taken very little notion of the free speech within the nation, with the evolvement of several law, the notions have changed drastically. Under section 10 of the Human Rights Act, 1988, it is stated that “every citizen shall have the absolute free of speech”. However, the Human Rights Act, 1988 also provides several conditions which includes such speech shall be conditioned if it is in the interest of the “national security, public safety or territorial integrity” or for the “prevention of crime or protection of health and morale” or for the purpose of “protecting the reputation of the others” etc.

Public Order Act, 1986

In contradiction to the abovementioned HRA, 1988 herein, the Public Order Act, 1986 clearly states that , a speech shall be considered as a hate speech if the instant speech has been given in the “light of threaten, abuse or insult a race or a religious tribe” or if a speech instigates terrorism against the State or if it particularly threatens a race or abuses any kind of sexual orientation herein, it shall be regarded as a hate speech.

British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v. Singh, [2010] EWCA Civ 350

1. The Human Rights Act, 1988, s.10
2. Eric Barendt; “Freedom Of Expression In The United Kingdom Under The Human Rights Act 1998” (2009); Indiana Law Journal, V. 84, Issue. 3, Art. 4, P.855
3. The Human Rights Act, s. 10(2)
4. Public Order Act, 1986, s.4

In this instant case, a case of libel was instituted against the defendant and a huge public support was gained in favour of such statement made by Singh herein. However, later the court ruled that such comments made by the defendant shall be regarded as a fair comment which is based on facts and thus, the case of libel shall not stand herein.

Mosley v United Kingdom, [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 30

In the instant case, a case was instituted under ECHR for the purpose of putting a restriction on the printing of newspaper and thus, it was said to be in violation of the freedom of speech under article 8 of the ECHR and article 10 of the Human Rights Act, 1988 as well. However, the court held contradictory view in this case and stated that even if it is a fact, if the fact is of controversial nature, the newspaper shall be cautious while publishing it.

Application of the relevant legal provisions

As it has already been discussed in the abovementioned case study herein, Brendan, being a SAORADH political party member and an activist of such party, had made a presentation in the Leeds University before the Irish Society to collect donation. Thus, under article 10 of the Human Rights Act, 1988, Brendan shall reserve every such right to do such act and collect donations by stating a presentation herein.

However, as it has been seen from the case of British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v. Singh, it had been decided that a comment is to be accepted as a fair comment when it shall state fact. In the abovementioned case, as Harry has seen the presentation, Brendan has allegedly twisted facts in a manner to make the other political party or the British look bad, thus it shall be considered as a comment under section 4 of the Public Order Act, 1986 herein. While it is not to be regarded as a complete hate speech but as the particular speech targeted one particular race herein and made derogatory comments about it, it shall be considered to be of controversial nature as it had been stated in the case of Mosley v United Kingdom.

1. ECHR, article 8
2. British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v. Singh, [2010] EWCA Civ 350
3. [2010] EWCA Civ 350

Conclusion

In the light of the abovementioned application and considering the abovementioned legal provisions and case laws herein, it can be deduced from the given case problem that Harry was right in making a complaint letter to the University Governance as Brendan’s speech crosses the limit of free speech and it is considered to be hate speech as it provides twisted facts of a particular race. Thus, Brendan shall be held liable for the purpose of instigating the minds of the students with hate speech against a particular race in order to facilitate his own political agenda.

---

1. [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Legislations

The Human Rights Act, 1988

The Public Order Act, 986

Journal

Eric Barendt; “Freedom Of Expression In The United Kingdom Under The Human Rights Act 1998” (2009); Indiana Law Journal, V. 84, Issue. 3, Art. 4

Case Laws

British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v. Singh, [2010] EWCA Civ 350

Mosley v United Kingdom, [2011] 53 E.H.R.R. 30

Treaty

European Convention on Human Rights; signed on 4th November, 1950 (came into force 03 September, 1953); 189 UNTS 137