Descripción del Proceso en Lecho Fluidizado

Introduction

1. Groups that are “concerned in terrorism” – meaning that they commit,

prepare for, encourage, promote or are otherwise involved in serious violence designed to intimidate the public or a section of the public for the purpose of advancing an ideological, religious or political cause – can be proscribed (banned) under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT). There are, however, no equivalent powers currently available to proscribe or ban groups which espouse or incite hatred or other forms of violence. The review considered whether changes should be made to the law to address this.

Issue

2. Proscription is one of the ways in which the Government – and a wide

range of our international partners – currently disrupts terrorist activity. Proscription aims to deter and disrupt any terrorist organisations from operating in the UK. It also supports foreign governments and sends a strong signal that the UK rejects these organisations and their claims to legitimacy. Unlike prosecution, control orders or deportation, it is aimed primarily at groups rather than individuals. But proscription does make it a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation or to wear the uniform of that organisation. It is also a criminal offence for a person to support a proscribed organisation, including by fundraising and arranging meetings to support the organisation.

3. Under Part II of TACT, the Home Secretary may proscribe an

organisation only if she believes it is “concerned in terrorism”. For the purposes of TACT, an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it: commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of acts of terrorism); or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Should the statutory test be met, the Home Secretary must consider as a matter of discretion whether to proscribe the organisation having regard to all the relevant factors.

4. As there are currently no powers available to ban organisations which

espouse or incite hatred or violence of a sort which falls outside the criteria in TACT 2000, to do so would require either amendments to the current legislation or the introduction of a new statutory regime.

Options considered

5. The review considered whether it would be practical to widen the

current definition of terrorism or to amend the statutory test for proscription under TACT to include organisations that promote views which incite violence or hatred.

6. It would be possible to amend the definition of terrorism to include additional actions. But this would present a number of challenges. An amendment would in effect define a wider range of behaviours as “terrorism”, behaviours which are already covered by existing hatred legislation, for example inciting racial or religious hatred. Amending the definition would also expand the scope of application of all the police and executive powers that utilise the current definition of terrorism. Stop and search powers, pre-charge detention and control orders would consequently apply to a much wider group of people than at present.

7. In theory, another option might be to amend the statutory test for

proscription, namely that a group must be “concerned in terrorism”. However, the review considered that the test is already sufficiently broad in scope and that the threshold is appropriate, notably in relation to the inclusion of “otherwise concerned in terrorism” as a criterion for proscription. The current test is certainly broad enough to encompass any terrorism-related activity by an organisation.

8. The review therefore considered whether it would be possible to create

a new proscription regime. The basis for such a new regime would be existing hatred legislation contained within the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008). Under such a regime the Home Secretary would have the power to ban an organisation if she believed that its activities or publications were intended – or potentially just likely – to incite hatred on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation.

9. The review considered that such a regime would be lawful and the

procedural aspects (for example banning, lifting the banning and appeal) and the offences (membership, support and, if thought necessary, the wearing of uniforms) could potentially be constructed along lines similar to the existing proscription regime under TACT.

10. There would, however, be significant challenges in introducing a new

regime on this basis. Existing hatred legislation is complex with particular difficulties associated with proving the required intention or likelihood as a result of particular acts (see below). For example, Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 (Racial Hatred) contains a number of offences relating to the stirring up of racial hatred. For each of these offences the words, behaviour or actions must be threatening, abusive or insulting and they must either be intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.

11. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amends the Public Order

Act 1986 to insert provisions about hatred on the grounds of a person’s religious belief and introduces a number of offences of stirring up religious hatred. For each of these offences the words, behaviour or action must be threatening, and, in order to protect legitimate freedom of expression, the prosecution must certainly prove intention as well as likelihood, to stir up

religious hatred. These offences therefore have an even higher threshold than the racial hatred offence outlined above.

12. There have been a very limited number of prosecutions against individuals under existing hatred legislation and it may therefore be difficult to establish that certain groups would meet the threshold to be banned. A new regime could also be difficult to frame in a way that limits its scope to the intended target without including a wider range of organisations with varying views on race, religion and sexual orientation. It could also be viewed as an unwarranted interference with the principles of freedom of speech and political activity.

13. The review therefore concluded that introducing a banning regime based on hatred legislation would have a number of disadvantages.

Recommendations

14. The review recommends that:

i. It would be disproportionate and possibly ineffective to widen the definition of terrorism or lower the proscription threshold to try to include groups which incite hatred and violence. There would be unintended consequences for the basic principles of freedom of expression.

ii. The focus for tackling groups of concern who do not meet the statutory

test for proscription should continue to be the prosecution of people who have been engaged in illegal activities.

iii. The Department for Communities and Local Government is also taking

forward work to tackle intolerance and non-violent extremism which falls short of terrorism. This work is directly relevant to the issues considered here.