Terror watchdog accused of ‘naivety’
BRITAIN’S terror watchdog was on collision course with the Prime Minister last night after he criticised plans to prosecute disciples of online hate preachers and questioned long prison sentences for less serious terror offences.
Government sources accused Max Hill QC of “breathtaking naivety” after he said ministers would be “criminalising thought” if they outlawed those who watch extremist speeches online.
In a direct challenge to Theresa May and Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, the independent reviewer of terror legislation said new laws were unnecessary and recommended shorter jail terms for some convicted terrorists. Whitehall sources expressed frustration with Mr Hill and one MP suggested he preferred to “give terrorists a cup of tea and a hug” despite four deadly terrorist attacks this year in the UK.
Last week Mr Hill said British jihadists should be allowed back into the UK, despite a Government minister saying the only way to combat the danger they posed was to kill them.
It came as a report revealed more Isil fighters had returned to Britain than any other Western country. Richard Barrett, former director of counter-terrorism at MI6, said more than 425 of the 850 Britons had returned, and they continued to pose a risk.
Following the London Bridge terrorist attack in June that left eight people dead, the Prime Minister said “enough is enough” and announced plans to make it illegal to view extremist content online. Downloading extremist material is already against the law.
Mr Hill used a lecture in London last night to urge ministers to think again. He said: “We do not, and should not, criminalise thought without action or preparation for action. Thought with steps towards action can be terrorism. Thought without action or preparation for action may be extremism, but it is not terrorism.”
He singled out Ms Rudd’s announcement at the Tory conference that people viewing terrorist content online could face up to 15 years in jail. Mr Hill said: “Are two clicks on a link one too many, or will three clicks be required? Can an internet user be innocently curious twice, but not three times? The struggle for national security must not be used as a stick to beat down the rights we hold dear. If that were to happen, terrorism would have prevailed.”
Mr Hill questioned whether those who commit “more modest terrorist offences” should receive long jail terms or if such sentences were driven by “political desire”.
Ministers said his comments showed a lack of understanding of the dangers.
♦ Social media giants wait months before telling the police about terrorist activity, the head of counter-terrorism policing has said. Mark Rowley said they should learn from the banks, which had shown the will to tackle crime.
Ever since the 9/11 attacks on America, the law has struggled to cope with the threat posed by international terrorism. The last Labour government introduced a succession of measures that were overturned in the courts as contrary to British common law requirements for a fair trial.
Attempts to stop so-called hate preachers from spreading their evil doctrine among impressionable young adherents ran into human rights and free speech obstacles. When Isil set up its now defunct caliphate, the Government introduced new laws to discourage jihadists from travelling to Syria to fight. Although it is illegal, few of the many hundreds of British citizens who joined the caliphate have been prosecuted. Moreover, they cannot be stopped from coming back because they would be rendered stateless.
So-called temporary exclusion orders were introduced to stop any British citizen suspected of terrorist activity returning to the UK for two years. They have been used just once. Yet British citizens who went to fight against Isil fear that they will be prosecuted if they return home.
Max Hill, QC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, wants to limit the use of these laws. He said last week that returning jihadists should be reintegrated into society not charged. In a speech last night he said new criminal offences, including banning orders and extremism disruption orders, backed by potential jail sentences, should not go ahead.
He also does not want people who look at extremist videos to be pursued if this is just innocent curiosity. There is a point here. Should anti-terrorist measures be used against an activity that is not of itself terrorism?
The proposed new offence would carry a sentence of up to 15 years – which is more than for some murders – and is designed to extend the current prohibition on possessing information likely to be used by a terrorist to include streaming as well as downloading videos.
Mr Hill is right to say that the law should not criminalise the merely curious and require evidence of more sinister intent.
But equally, people who may end up victims of a terrorist atrocity are also entitled to expect that, when Parliament passes laws, they are used. If they are not, as Rory Stewart, the Foreign Office minister, said, then the only “good option” is to kill the jihadists overseas. Is that what critics want?