Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is a poorly written law which states:
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2) In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.
There is no requirement that the person holding or making the record has any connection to a real terrorist threat for charges to be brought. Charges could be brought against huge numbers of people, including practically anyone who has got a science textbook or anyone who has a local copy of Wikipedia for example. What we have done by introducing this law in the UK is outlawed specific areas of knowledge; this is about as close as you can get to a thought crime without stepping into the realms of science fiction. The “reasonable excuse” clause might provide a defence in court for an academic employed by a university, but what about an merely inquisitive individual or a student? I think laws like this which criminalise tens or hundreds of thousands of people are bad laws. A society where many people routinely break the law and the state enforces the law arbitrarily is in my view a lawless society, and something I would like to avoid in the UK.
Some would defend the law by assuming good-faith and common sense on the part of the police and the state. This is dangerous, our laws have to be robust enough to stand up to protect people from those wishing to abuse them. We have seen the prosecution under this section of a pair of seventeen year old boys for possession of the “Anarchists’ Cookbook”, a version of which is available on Amazon variants on the document have been distributed in electronic form since before the days of the internet. The pair in court were fortunate a jury acquitted them, though this was after a thirteen day trial. Some recipes in the document are fantastic science lessons, and in that form will be read by far more people than the few lucky enough to study A-level chemistry where the same information can be taught in a formal setting.
Far from amending the law so it doesn’t deter the pursuit of knowledge – an activity which is of great benefit to society – changes have been introduced expanding its scope. An order was made on the 19th of January 2009 by Vernon Coaker, Minister of State at the Home Office bringing into force additional sections of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 from the 16th February 2009. The effect of these changes is to make that bad law even worse.
The new section introduced by section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 states:
1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction—
(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
Here we see the UK introducing a number of things it is in effect illegal to Google for (Googling something is clearly an attempt to elicit information about it). Today I can safely search the internet to see if the new chief of the Met. Police is planning to make a personal commitment to the capital and leave his restored barn deep in the Lancashire countryside, after the 16th of February I will have to think carefully about how I conduct Google searches and other research about classes of individuals listed in the act.
The freedom of the press is also at risk; in relation to the above quoted section the British Journal of Photography are warning: Taking photos of police officers could be considered a crime. Press photographers and others will now have to think more carefully before taking photographs of police officers. A free press is critical to democracy and the UK and needs to be defended. For individuals, being free to take photographs of police malpractice, provides an important redress of the balance of power between the state and the individual.
Grimsby MP Austin Mitchell tabled an early day motion in 2008 entitled photography in public areas expressing concern about the increased tendency of the police to prevent people taking photographs. I have myself been told by the police not to take photographs on a number of occasions.
During his inauguration speech Barack Obama said: “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”; we need to do the same here in the UK.
5 responses to “Counter Terrorism Act 2008 – Making a Bad Law Worse”
“an individual who is or has been …”
Why are former members of the police, military and intelligence agencies covered, without exception, including all those who have been kicked out for treason, espionage, corruption etc. ?
Why are “Walter Mitty” fantasists or con artists, who exaggerate their former military careers, skills or experience, for vanity or to swindle people, also included ?
Why are other people who are just as much targets of terrorists e.g. Judges, juries, prison officers etc. not covered by this new Terrorism Act 2000 section 58A ?
How soon before this law is invoked by those in the Police, Military or Intelligence services who want to hide or cover up incompetence, corruption, or worse, from investigative journalists or other investigators ?
How soon before this law is used to threaten, harass and arrest political demonstrators or activists, who take photos of the Police etc. who are taking photos of them ?
It does not matter that there is a “reverse burden of proof” legal defence available to you in Court, i.e. you have to prove you had a good excuse, not the usual presumption of innocence. By then it is too late for your liberty and career, once you have been tainted and internationally blacklisted, by having been arrested under a terrorism law, even if you are never charged or are found not guilty.
I wanted to tell the whole world what I think about the country, society and world Im living in. And particularly about section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Very often, with a picture or two they become rich in context and maening! A picture’s worth a million words! Im not going to tell anything. Will stop here and never going to tell anything to anyone! Its SHOCKING!
In 100 years time, historians will be looking back on this period trying to find evidence of why our governments were putting so much effort into preventing terrorism, but actually there will be very little proof available to justify the reasons for all this legislation.
All documentation of wars, protests, genocide, political corruption, weapons contracts, etc, that are recorded by independant sources suddenly becomes illegal, because it’s seen as remotely being of assistance to people likely to commit an act of terrorism.
Is documentation by use of photos or video of civilain deaths in north sri lanka, fallujah, haditha, gaza, lebanon, may lai, cambodia, hiroshima, nagasaki, afghanistan suddenly illegal? What about documenting the ongoing effects on the environment of using depleted uranium and white phosphorus in weapons.
History may actually show that the powers that be were actually commiting worse crimes than the terrorists they were trying to protect the people from.
The only documentation that will exist for this peiod will have passed government cencorship or have been self censored by people who are to afraid to stick there head up in case finding themselves in jail for several years with out charge.
Is recording history now a criminal offence?
this country has went back to the dark ages of witch hunting,every photographer, jurnalist,etc is now a witch and will be tried by fire unless they can proove they had good reason to take the picure, i myself had my expensice camera smashed out of my hands by a police officer here in northern ireland at the weekend it has over £800 of damage..i think this is criminal i assureed the officer i had no police photo’s and it was not my intention and after i showed him.!!! all i can say is rest in piece terry loyd and richard wild because had you been alive today you would be held under the prevention of terrorism act for reporting on our forces at home and away…….
I used to be a member of the Armed Forces. Does that mean that photos taken of me could be construed as aiding a terrorist? How about if someone at a party asks, “So, were you in the Falklands thing then?”
This is a very bad law.
In particular, we *should* be taking photos of our police. If we didn’t, things like this would go unrecorded. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault