On terrorism, no time for politics

Less compelling is the second proposed new offence — indirect incitement to commit terrorist acts. This could turn on something as intangible as the tone of voice in which someone publicly stated approval of extremism. The obvious problem here is how to frame any tightening of the law on public provocation in a way that would secure a safe conviction.

Thirdly, the Government wants to criminalise the provision of training in the use of hazardous substances for terrorist purposes. That, too, is sensible…

In addition, the Bill has a number of clauses that close absurd loopholes in existing law that lawyers could use to escape convictions. One introduces ‘‘all premises’’ search warrants so police do not have to specify each address in advance. A second gives the Security Service the ability to seek warrants authorising activities overseas. And a third extends stop-and-search powers to ‘‘bays and estuaries’’, which were foolishly left out of previous definitions.

Several important issues are not tackled in this Bill. The first concerns telephone tapping. The Government still opposes the use of taps as court evidence — insisting that this compromises surveillance methods. This is shortsighted… The second would extend, if necessary, the 14 days during which a terrorist suspect can be held and questioned (with regular judicial referral). And the third is a declaration that Britain will derogate from international treaties to allow suspects to be deported promptly, even to countries with dubious legal records.

Excerpted from an editorial in ‘The Times’, July 19