CHAPTER 3:
A new definition of terrorism?
This chapter discusses the current definition of terrorism and the views of Lord Lloyd on how it might be improved. It proposes a new definition of terrorism, which is wider in scope than the present one, and which includes serious violence against property as well as people. Views are sought on:
- the proposed new definition of terrorism, including;
- its application to domestic (as well as Irish and international) terrorism;
The current definition
3.1 Terrorism is defined in section 20 of the PTA as "the use of violence for political ends [including] any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public in fear". Within this broad definition, use of the special powers the Act provides is qualified in each case. They may only be used either in relation to "terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland" (Irish terrorism) or in relation to both Irish terrorism and international terrorism. Non-Irish domestic terrorism, that is terrorism having its origins in the affairs of any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland, is excluded from the scope of the Act (this is referred to from here on as "domestic terrorism").
3.2 The definition of terrorism in the EPA is identical to that in section 20 of the PTA. The EPA does not impose any limitations on the kinds of terrorism to which it applies. But in practice, the powers have been, and are, only used to combat Irish terrorism since that has presented by far the greatest threat to security in Northern Ireland.
3.3 The limitations on the applicability of the powers in the PTA are similarly the result of previous assessments of the threat from terrorism to the United Kingdom and its interests overseas. In 1974, when the original Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed, it was designed to counter Irish terrorism in the wake of IRA bombing campaigns. The threat from international terrorism by comparison was relatively low, and the threat from domestic terrorism negligible.
3.4 The scope of many of the Act's provisions was extended to include international terrorism in 1984. This reflected the judgement that the threat to the United Kingdom and its interests abroad had increased significantly and that this would continue. The threat from domestic terrorism was considered insufficient to merit the use of special powers to combat it.
Lord Lloyd's views on domestic terrorism
3.5 Lord Lloyd in his report criticises both the current definition of terrorism in section 20 of the PTA and the restrictions imposed throughout that Act limiting the use of the powers to certain kinds of terrorism. He suggests that there is no difference in principle, still less from the standpoint of the victim, between domestic and international terrorism given that the perpetrators use many of the same methods and inspire the same fear in those caught up in, or affected by, their activities. The police should therefore, in his view, be able to use all their counter-terrorist powers against domestic terrorists in the same way they do against Irish or international terrorists. He recommends that any new body of legislation to combat terrorism should include a definition which covers all forms of terrorism.
The Government's approach to domestic terrorism
3.6 The Government notes that Irish, domestic, and international terrorist groups are driven by the same desire to achieve political change by violent means. The methods which they employ are those in common currency amongst terrorists everywhere - bombs, incendiaries, shootings, arson and so forth. Nor is there any difference in the fear, pain or despair felt by the victims or their families whether the bomb or incendiary which affects them is planted by a republican or loyalist paramilitary, an international terrorist or an animal rights activist. The injuries and the destruction of life and property are the same. On that view, it seems illogical to draw distinctions between these types of criminal activity and refuse to allow the police to exercise the powers conferred by the Act save in relation to Irish and international terrorism.
3.7 But successive Governments have, rightly in this Government's view, sought to ensure that the exceptional powers contained in the PTA and the EPA are used only as and when the security situation warrants them. Against this criterion, can the current, or probable future, threat from domestic terrorism be said to be such that special powers are needed to deal with it?
Domestic terrorism
3.8 As already outlined in chapter 2, in the last 25 years the main domestic terrorist threat in the UK has come from militant animal rights activists and to a lesser extent from Scottish and Welsh nationalist extremists.
3.9 Scottish and Welsh extremist nationalist groups have certainly on occasions resorted to violent means to achieve their ends. Scottish nationalist extremists have, for example, been responsible for over 40 incidents in the last 5 years including the despatch by letter or parcel of a number of real and hoax explosive devices to MPs and others. But in recent years their violent activities have considerably diminished. It may well be, moreover, that with the provision of a Parliament for Scotland and an Assembly in Wales, their respective activities - and support base - will decline still further. But, of course, there can be no absolute guarantee of this.
3.10 Animal rights, and to a lesser extent environmental rights activists, have mounted, and continue to pursue, persistent and destructive campaigns. Last year, for example, more than 800 incidents were recorded by the Animal Rights National Index (ARNI). These included attacks on abattoirs, laboratories, breeders, hunts, butchers, chemists, doctors, vets, furriers, restaurants, supermarkets and other shops. Some of the attacks were minor but others were not. Thankfully no one was killed but people were injured and the total damage done in 1997 has been estimated at more than £1.8 million. In previous years, the cost of the damage inflicted has been higher. For example in 1995, the cost of damage was estimated at nearly £4.5 million.
3.11 While the level of terrorist activity by such groups is lower, and the sophistication of their organisation and methods less well developed, than that of some of the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland, or of some of the international terrorist groups, there is nothing to indicate that the threat they pose will go away. Acts of serious violence against people and property have undoubtedly been committed in the UK by these domestic groups.
3.12 There is also the possibility that new groups espousing different causes will be set up and adopt violent methods to impose their will on the rest of society. In the United States, for example, there is an increasing tendency by individuals and groups to resort to terrorist methods. Some of those opposed to the USA's laws on abortion have bombed clinics and attacked, and, in a number of cases, killed doctors and nursing staff employed by them. Although there have been no comparable attacks in the United Kingdom, the possibility remains that some new group or individual could operate in this way in the future, threatening serious violence to people and property here.
3.13 In the light of the above, the Government has come to the conclusion that any new counter-terrorism legislation should be designed to combat serious terrorist violence of all kinds. It proposes therefore that the powers in the new legislation should be capable of being used in relation to any form of serious terrorist violence whether domestic, international or Irish.
A new definition of terrorism?
3.14 If the new legislation is to deal with all kinds of terrorism, the question arises as to whether the current definition of terrorism in the PTA needs to be changed to accommodate the various threats posed by different terrorist groups. Lord Lloyd believes that it does. He suggests that the current definition is both too wide and too narrow: too wide in that it can cover the use of trivial violence which can and, he suggests should, be dealt with under the ordinary criminal law, and too narrow because it may not cover adequately the activities of religiously inspired terrorist groups. Lord Lloyd recommends that the Government remedy this by adopting the working definition of terrorism used by the FBI in the USA.
3.15 The FBI's definition of terrorism is:
"the use of serious violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives."
3.16 The Government agrees that the new legislation should bite only on the use of serious violence. And it agrees that if there is any doubt that the definition in section 20 of the PTA covers the use of such violence by religiously motivated terrorist groups this should be remedied. It therefore sees some attractions in the FBI's definition. But it wonders whether this definition might also, as it stands, be both too broad and too narrow. Too broad because it includes the use of serious violence for "social" objectives. The latter could, for example, include crimes committed by criminals other than terrorists such as blackmail or extortion for gain. The Government does not believe that special powers are needed to deal with matters of that sort where there is no intent to disrupt or undermine the democratic process. The FBI definition may be too narrow, however, in that it appears not to cover the damage and serious disruption which might result from a terrorist hacking into some vital computer installation and, without using violence, altering, deleting, or disrupting the data held on it. Such activity might well result in deaths and injuries and, given the increasing reliance placed on computers and electronic forms of communication, the destruction or corruption of data held in such systems could also result in extensive disruption to the economic and other infrastructure of this country. Another example of an act which could cause serious disruption and harm without necessarily in itself being an act of serious violence would be contaminating a public utility system such as a water or sewage works. The Government believes that any new definition of terrorism should be sufficient to catch the potential for these kinds of activity by terrorists.
3.17 The Government therefore suggests that terrorism should be redefined as "the use of serious violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public, or any section of the public for political, religious or ideological ends". The term serious violence would need to be defined so that it included serious disruption, for instance resulting from attacks on computer installations or public utilities, as described in paragraph 3.16 above.
3.18 The Government recognises that there is a balance to be struck between too narrow a definition of terrorism (which could exclude some serious threats which fully justify the availability of special powers) and one that is too wide (and which might be taken to include matters that would not normally be labelled "terrorist"). The Government would welcome views on whether its proposed definition succeeds in striking that balance. Violence that can be described as "politically motivated" may arise in the context of demonstrations and industrial disputes. The Government has no intention of suggesting that matters that can properly be dealt with under normal public order powers should in future be dealt with under counter-terrorist legislation.
|
