Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Third sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 28th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I first want to make a few general remarks about clause 1.

I think we all accept that there is a need to update the law in this area, and that is for a number of reasons. The first is the evolving and changing nature of the terrorist threat over past decades. There have also been changes in technology, which I appreciate we will deal with in later clauses. However, there is also—this is vital for clause 1—the fact that we now have experience of the Terrorism Act 2000 in our criminal justice system and in the decisions taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The clause essentially updates section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Just so that we are clear, section 12(1) of the Act indicates:

“A person commits an offence if—(a) he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and (b) the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property”.

The key part of that subsection is the inviting of support for a proscribed organisation.

When Assistant Commissioner Basu gave evidence to the Committee on Tuesday, I was careful to ask him whether there were examples of situations that are not covered under the 2000 Act but would be captured—or are intended to be captured—by this new offence, and he gave a couple examples. One was the case of Mohammed Shamsuddin and the Channel 4 documentary, “The Jihadis Next Door”. He referred to a speech that Shamsuddin gave on 27 June 2015, in which

“it was very clear that he supported Daesh and what they were doing…He criticised Gay Pride and said that gay people should be thrown from tall buildings. Having spoken on recent shootings in Tunisia, he said, “The spark was lit,” and that the listeners knew the rest.”—[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2018; c. 6, Q3.]

Of course, the problem with those remarks, which I will come back to, is that they are not captured by the 2000 Act as it stands, because there was no specific invitation to others to join the cause.

The other example given was of Omar Brooks, in relation to an incident on 4 July 2015. Again, there was clearly talk about religion being spread by the sword and about it not being a soft religion about peace, and there was the mocking of a Shi’ite who had spoken out against killing of Lee Rigby. The tone of the speech shows clear support for the concept and principles of Daesh, but, again, it does not take the additional step of inviting support from others.

Prior to this clause being proposed, the law as it stands was interpreted in the case of Choudary and Rahman, which the Minister referred to in his questions to the witnesses on Tuesday. About the offence as it stands, the Court of Appeal said:

“When considering the proportionality of the interference, it is important to emphasise that the section only prohibits inviting support for a proscribed organisation with the requisite intent. It does not prohibit the expression of views or opinions, no matter how offensive, but only the knowing invitation of support from others for the proscribed organisation.”

In essence, along with the two examples I have given on the basis of Assistant Commissioner Basu’s evidence, that captures where the law is and where it stops. There are others acting in a clearly unattractive way whom we wish to extend the law to.

The issue then becomes how, precisely, we want to draft the law to achieve that. Nobody says that freedom of expression is a wholly unqualified right—it is not, actually—but I am sure we all wish to strike a balance between people expressing views that we find distasteful and may not agree with, but that none the less come into our public debate and are defeated by others, and the clear nature of the offence, which is about recruiting people to the terrorist cause. How we draw that distinction is very important.

The amendments in my name seek to consider how we get that balance right. Nobody in the Committee would want to put something unworkable on the statute book, or something that was likely to attract a declaration of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. I tabled these amendments for the Minister’s consideration in that spirit and to assist in striking that balance appropriately. This is not a partisan issue, and I hope that we would all wish to strike that balance appropriately and to make the clause effective.

The two amendments—there are really two amendments, although there are three on the amendment paper—seek to look at the original offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 and at how the extension of that offence appears in clause 1. I have put forward two options: first, that the offence is committed only when the person intends to encourage support for a proscribed organisation—in other words, when the opinion is expressed, as set out in clause 1, together with intention; and, secondly, that recklessness is attached to the offence. Both options extend the existing offence, but not quite as widely as clause 1 as it stands.

Recklessness is not an unknown legal concept in our criminal law; on Tuesday, the Crown Prosecution Service gave evidence about it. There has been a change in the concept of recklessness in law. It is what we call subjective recklessness, so it is about what the individual person thinks about the risk. Recklessness would be far more difficult as a concept in this area if it was defined as it was prior to 2003, when it was about an objective view and about others assuming what that person might mean. With the restriction that is in our law on recklessness anyway, recklessness should perhaps be less of a concern for the Committee.

I offer the two amendments for consideration in a constructive spirit. Their purpose is to ensure that, when the Committee looks at extending the law, as we all agree we should be doing, to examples of what the Minister has referred to as the “charismatic preacher” and to the impact of a person who is recruiting people to the cause, but who is not quite using a form of words that is captured in the intention in the Terrorism Act 2000, we do that in a way that is workable and proportionate and does not draw a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act. I therefore hope the Minister will indicate that the amendments will be considered.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I rise to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen.

[The Chair]

Order. Sorry, we cannot debate the amendment until I have put it to the Committee—it is my error, not yours. The question is that amendment 2, to clause 1, is made.

[Gavin Newlands]

Practice makes perfect, Ms Ryan.

I rise in support of the amendments. Clause 1 will create a new offence for expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, in circumstances where the perpetrator

“is reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation.”

That extends the existing offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation to cover acts such as making supportive statements, approving of certain attitudes or behaviours, and providing intellectual support.

It has been argued by others that the term “invitation of support” is already a rather broad concept. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Choudary and Rahman, which has already been mentioned, held that a person need not be personally providing support for a banned organisation; rather, the criminality lies in inviting support from a third party. The support need not, therefore, be tangible or practical, but could include approval, endorsement or other intellectual support.

We are generally supportive of the Bill, and we offer amendments only to try to improve it. However, clause 1 removes the requirement of proving intent. In doing so, it could be claimed that it pushes the law further away from actual terrorism and well into the realm of free speech and opinion—values and freedoms that all four countries of the UK rightly cherish. The clause actively and intentionally reverses the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the criminal law

“does not prohibit the holding of opinions or beliefs supportive of a proscribed organisation; or the expression of those opinions or beliefs”.

Although recklessness is a commonly used legal term in terms of acts against the person, I have misgivings about using it to criminalise speech. The Joint Committee on Human Rights made that point, as was mentioned during the evidence session on Tuesday, when it said:

“recklessness is normally applied to actions that are themselves within the realm of criminality…if you hit someone or deceive them then it is absolutely appropriate for a jury to be able to convict you of an offence even if you did not intend the consequences of your actions. The same nexus between action and consequence should not exist for speech offences. Speech does not naturally reside in the realm of criminality.”

Others far better versed than me in this area share those opinions. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, wrote:

“The mere fact that someone holds an opinion can never be a reason to prosecute. You can think what you like.”

Without the right to express a thought or belief, freedom of expression would be meaningless. The right to express an opinion is fundamental. Clause 1 would prove that assertion wrong by creating a reason to prosecute someone simply for expressing an opinion.

In addition, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) wrote:

“If the Irish Taoiseach made a speech about the Easter Rising as a glorious moment in Irish history, and if you have someone who happened to be a member of the Real IRA and it motivated them to go on with some unfinished business, could the Taoiseach be arrested?”

That would be absurd, but given how wide the clause is, that could be its effect. As such, we support amendment 1 and the other amendments tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench. We are happy to do so, because changing the legal test for the offence of expressing an opinion or belief from recklessness to having to prove intent is something we should all support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(1C) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1A) to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for the publication of the image.”

This amendment explicitly sets out that a person charged with the new offence under subsection (3) has a defence if they can prove a reasonable excuse for the publication of the image.

Clause 2 fits into the category of offences I have mentioned that are being updated to take account of technology. Amendment 4 is not unreasonable and would simply set out the defence of reasonable excuse. Whether that is necessary may be subject to argument, and I am happy to listen to the Minister’s position, but I tabled the amendment to give a degree of comfort in relation to the scope of the offence.

We would all agree that the situation needs to be updated. It is set out in section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, on uniform. Under that provision, which was of course passed some 18 years ago, a

“person in a public place commits an offence if he—(a) wears an item of clothing, or (b) wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”

A term of imprisonment not exceeding six months can be imposed.

The problem that arises is that people can now perfectly well wear such an item of clothing, or display an article, in a private place and take a photograph to be quickly disseminated on social media such as Facebook or Twitter, or by other means. It is right for the Government to look at that. Wearing something in a private place and putting a picture of it on social media could result in far more people seeing it than would have happened in the situation envisaged in the old offence, where the item was displayed in a public place.

My first reason for tabling the amendment is simply to add a note of caution. We are moving from criminalising behaviour in a public place to criminalising something that happens in a private place in the first instance, but which technology allows to be disseminated in the public sphere.

The second reason is that we should take care not to extend the criminal law to behaviour that we might all think unattractive—I hesitate to use the word “reckless” after the previous discussion—but that none the less would not give rise to terrorist intent. In a question during the evidence sitting on Tuesday, I gave the example of a 16 or 17-year-old going to a fancy dress party who wears something that we might all regard as offensive, in bad taste and showing poor judgment, but whom no one would seriously want to criminalise as the clause would do. The answer I received from Mr McGill on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and Assistant Commissioner Basu was simply that, in such cases, they would not be interested in pushing the matter into court. Assistant Commissioner Basu said, with respect to the CPS and Mr McGill:

“I would never get such a case past him anyway, even if I was prepared to put that case. We are far too busy on genuine acts of terrorism to be concerned with such a case. What it might point to is somebody who is in trouble and needs a bit of guidance”.––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2018; c.7-8, Q4.]

He referred to Prevent.

Assistant Commissioner Basu is right. Such behaviour might suggest that someone had problems. It might just suggest in the situation I described that they were being offensive for the sake of it. I obviously appreciate, too, that the Crown Prosecution Service has to apply a public interest test, but at the same time, while that prosecutorial discretion is important, the legal framework we set out in the first place is also important.

I completely support the intention of the clause. It is right that we update the law in the social-media age. We want to deal with the dissemination of unpleasant images. However, it is not an unreasonable amendment to. We ask simply to put that reasonable excuse on the face of the Bill to cover the situations I have suggested may arise.

[Gavin Newlands]

I neglected to say earlier that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. As has been outlined by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, clause 2 extends the offence that would result in criminalisation for the publication of an image, the wearing of an item of clothing or the display of an article such as a flag in such a way that would arouse reasonable suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

It should be noted that it is already an offence to wear certain clothing, or to carry, wear or display certain articles in public places. The behaviour of those who disseminate terrorist publications intending to encourage terrorism, or being reckless as to whether the behaviour encourages it, is already criminalised by section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and will attract a 15-year maximum sentence under the provisions of the Bill.

The clause would criminalise those who might be highlighting their support for a proscribed organisation, which is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It overcomplicates the response and risks targeting innocent individuals in the attempt to target people who would look to do us harm. In a briefing, which I am sure the hon. Member for North Dorset fully endorses, Liberty—his favourite campaigning group—[Interruption.] I was talking about Liberty.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I know you were.

[Gavin Newlands]

Indeed.

[Nic Dakin]

You have woken him up.

[Gavin Newlands]

Yes, I know. I said it for that very reason.

[Simon Hoare]

It was a Pavlovian response.

[Gavin Newlands]

In that briefing, Liberty makes a fair point, when it says that

“further criminalisation of photographs of a costume only exacerbates the risk that law enforcement officials attempting to interpret the meaning of a photograph will mistake reference for endorsement, irony for sincerity, and childish misdirection for genuine threat.”

[Simon Hoare]

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think my response to the oral evidence—if one can grace it with that word—provided by Liberty was unique to me.

[Gavin Newlands]

That may well be the case, but having served on previous Bill Committees with the hon. Gentleman, I am well aware of his high opinion of that organisation.

It must be noted that the clause risks putting additional strain on resources. It may lead to the investigation of innocent individuals when it would be more effective to target those about whom we should be worried. The new offence does not require an individual to be a member of a proscribed organisation or to have ever offered support to it. The only requirement is that the circumstances around publication arouse reasonable suspicion that a person is a member of or supports a proscribed organisation.

During the evidence session on Tuesday, we heard a number of everyday examples where someone could be in breach of clause 2. As we have heard, that could include someone dressing up in fancy dress for Halloween, a tourist having a picture with a Hezbollah flag, the display of a historical flag, or a journalist or academic researching a particular field of study. Greater clarity and safeguards are required to protect innocent parties from being in breach of this new offence.