Rebalancing, Reviewing or Rebranding the Treatment of Terrorist Suspects: The Counter-Terrorism Review 2011

Middleton, Ben

doi:10.1350/jcla.2011.75.3.707

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The significance of these changes is a matter of dispute. While the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has insisted that the TPIMs system is "a new rather than a rebadged model" (Anderson 2012: 10), others have suggested that the changes constitute mere "rebranding" (Middleton 2011).…”

Section: Who Should Impose Tpims? Issues Of Normative Dualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of the Courts in Imposing Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: Normative Duality and Legal Realism

Macdonald

2013

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that the courts, not the Home Secretary, should be empowered to issue Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs). It explains that at the heart of the debate are three questions: whether measures like TPIMs should be viewed primarily from the perspective of security or liberty; how we should conceive the executive and the courts; and the empirical question of how these two arms of government answer these questions. The non-mechanistic nature of legal reasoning means that legal reasons may be constructed to fit one's normative viewpoint on each of the first two questions. Importantly, however, the case law on judicial scrutiny of control orders consistently demonstrates that the courts themselves regard TPIMs as being primarily a restriction on liberty, which require a fair hearing before an independent court. Whilst this does provide some protection of individual rights, the nature of law as an unfinished practice means that for stable protection of individual rights judicial independence must be promoted and nurtured in both the legal and political realms. The failure of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 to vest the power to issue TPIMs in the courts thus represents a missed opportunity to secure political endorsement of enhanced legal protection of individual liberty in cases involving national security.

show abstract

Section: Who Should Impose Tpims? Issues Of Normative Dualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of the Courts in Imposing Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: Normative Duality and Legal Realism

Macdonald

2013

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Control orders were limited and could only be imposed for a period of up to 12 months at a time. Their legality could also be challenged (Middleton, 2011). They created measures to supervise suspects through electronic tagging or by requiring them to remain in their homes (Fitzpatrick, 2003).…”

Section: The Uk Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glorifying and encouraging terrorism: preserving the golden thread of civil liberties in Britain

Awan

2012

Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Al-Qaeda poses a major challenge to western democracies with its international networks and suicide attacks; it has been involved in some of the most horrific terrorist attacks across the world. As a result the UK, similar to many other countries, has enacted hard-line counter-terrorism legislation that has had an impact upon Muslim community relations with law enforcement agencies. This paper aims to examine the glorification offence under the Terrorism Act and its implications for free speech.Design/methodology/approach -The paper is designed to examine counter-terrorism legislation in Britain and in particular the offence of glorification and the impact it has had upon Muslim communities using empirical case studies and theoretical evidence.Findings -It is found that Muslim communities feel that their freedom of speech, thought and expression have been seriously curtailed as a result of the glorification offence and has led them to feel a sense of alienation and stigma which has manifested itself in the community by not trusting law enforcement agencies and counter-terrorism policies. Practical implications -In order to build trust with the Muslim community law enforcement agencies such as the police need to ensure that they do not disproportionately use their power of arrest under the guise of combating terrorism. Therefore, there is a need for law enforcement agencies to improve their internal and external structures through a process of engagement and understanding Muslim communities which would help rebuild trust and confidence.Originality/value -The paper examines counter-terrorism legislation and provides a theoretical framework for how policy should be shaped in the area of counter-terrorism. Currently the literature available concerning the new government reforms and the glorification offence under the Terrorism Act is limited and thus this paper provides a unique contribution towards understanding this offence in more detail and the impact it may have upon Muslim communities and civil liberties.

show abstract

‘Glocalizing’ Counterterrorism Law and Policy in the Caribbean: Between State Vulnerability and Independence

Barker

2017

The Palgrave Handbook of Global Counterterrorism Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rebalancing, Reviewing or Rebranding the Treatment of Terrorist Suspects: The Counter-Terrorism Review 2011

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

The Role of the Courts in Imposing Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: Normative Duality and Legal Realism

The Role of the Courts in Imposing Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: Normative Duality and Legal Realism

Glorifying and encouraging terrorism: preserving the golden thread of civil liberties in Britain

‘Glocalizing’ Counterterrorism Law and Policy in the Caribbean: Between State Vulnerability and Independence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About