Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Preventing Terrorism and Controlling Risk pp 27–39Cite as

The Legal Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1208 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Criminology ((SBICC,volume 1))

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to conduct a statutory analysis of the legislation providing the legal framework for control orders. I begin by providing a brief account of the developments immediately preceding the introduction of the control order regime in the United Kingdom, before providing an overview of the provisions contained within the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) 2005, describing the two types of control orders and the procedure involved in issuing them. The same procedure is then repeated for the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005, highlighting similarities and divergences between the two statutory instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for example Shah (2005) for a more in depth analysis of the ATCSA 2001.

  2. 2.

    Including foreign agencies.

  3. 3.

    (2004) UKHL 56 and (2005) 2 WLR 87 available at

    http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-1.htm.

  4. 4.

    For an in-depth overview of the history and run up to A (FC) and others (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) UKHL 56, see Bonner (2006) pp. 53–59.

  5. 5.

    H.C. Deb., Vol. 430, col. 305 (26 January 2005).

  6. 6.

    The PTA 2005 repealed s 21 to s 32 of the ATCSA 2001, repealed s62(15) and (16) and Sch. 7 para 30 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as well as amending several other statutes, including the Terrorism Act 2000.

  7. 7.

    H.C. Deb., Vol. 430, col. 307 (26 January 2005).

  8. 8.

    PTA, s1 (1) and (3).

  9. 9.

    S 8(2).

  10. 10.

    S 8(4).

  11. 11.

    S 1(9)(a).

  12. 12.

    S 1(9)(b–d) respectively.

  13. 13.

    Since the introduction of the PTA in 2005, two new acts were introduced, both slightly amending the control order regime. Firstly, the Terrorism Act 2006 created new preparatory terrorism offences, including encouragement of terrorism (s1), dissemination of terrorist publications (s2), preparation of terrorist acts (s5) and training for terrorism (s6). The creation of these new offences enabled individuals who might otherwise have been subject to a control order to be charged and prosecuted in criminal proceedings.

  14. 14.

    Ibid, s 2(4) and (6).

  15. 15.

    Ibid, s 3(1)(a) and 3(4).

  16. 16.

    Ibid, s 3(5)(a), (b) and (c) respectively.

  17. 17.

    Ibid, s 3(6).

  18. 18.

    Ibid, s 3(9).

  19. 19.

    Ibid, s3(11).

  20. 20.

    S 7(1).

  21. 21.

    S 7(2).

  22. 22.

    S 9(2)(b).

  23. 23.

    S 9(2)(d).

  24. 24.

    S 9(3).

  25. 25.

    S 9(4)(a).

  26. 26.

    S 10(4) and (5).

  27. 27.

    S 10(7).

  28. 28.

    The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2005, S.I. 2005/656, introducing part 76 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

  29. 29.

    H.C. Deb., Vol. 430, col. 310 (26 January 2005).

  30. 30.

    The same act also introduced preventative detention orders, stop and search powers, amended sedition offences and made changes to ASIO powers and financial reporting obligations, amongst other things.

  31. 31.

    For adults; and up to three months for people aged 16–18.

  32. 32.

    104.1.

  33. 33.

    104.2 (2)—What is or is not considered a terrorist organisation in Australia is determined by the Attorney General based on intelligence, or a court might decide it is. So in determining the prerequisite for a control order to be issued on the basis of training with a terrorist organisation, the AG is involved both at the supporting the issuance of a control order, as well as the conditions giving rise to it.

  34. 34.

    104.2 (3)(a)(b).

  35. 35.

    104.2 (3)(c).

  36. 36.

    104.2 (3) (d).

  37. 37.

    104.5.

  38. 38.

    iCOs cannot be sought for persons under the age of 16.

  39. 39.

    104.2 (3A).

  40. 40.

    S 3(1)—the term “seriously” is not further defined in the act.

  41. 41.

    104.2 (4).

  42. 42.

    The definition of an issuing court was inserted into s.100.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 by the Anti-Terrorism (No. 2 Act) 2005 and refers to (a) the Federal Court of Australia; or (b) the Family Court of Australia; or (c) the Federal Magistrates Court.

  43. 43.

    104.3.

  44. 44.

    104.4 (1).

  45. 45.

    104.4 (2).

  46. 46.

    104.4 (3).

  47. 47.

    104.5.

  48. 48.

    The maximum duration for a 16–18 year old is 3 months (104.28(2)). s104.5(2) specifies that successive COs can be made against the same person.

  49. 49.

    Subject to National Security exclusions in the NSIA 2004.

  50. 50.

    For the duration of the order only—these are to be destroyed as soon as the order is no longer in effect.

  51. 51.

    A person may chose not to participate in counselling or education (s104.5(6)).

  52. 52.

    And the Queensland public interest monitor if applicable.

  53. 53.

    104.19 (3).

  54. 54.

    104.23(1).

  55. 55.

    104.24(2).

  56. 56.

    104.26(4) states that not complying with this requirement does not affect the validity of the order.

  57. 57.

    104.21.

  58. 58.

    104.22(3) Imprisonment for 2 years.

  59. 59.

    The terrorism debate has to some extent accelerated the debate whether or not Australia needs a Bill of Rights, see for instance Williams (2004) and Saul (2007) for a more general account of administrative law on human rights.

References

  • Bonner, D. (2006). Checking the executive? Detention without trial, control orders, due process and human rights. European Public Law, 12(1), 45–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, D. (2007). Executive measures, terrorism and national security: Have the rules of the game changed? Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Commission of Jurists. (2009). Assessing damage, urging action: Report of the eminent jurists panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights. In I. C. o. Jurists (Ed.). Geneva: International Commission of Jurists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ip, J. (2007). Comparative perspectives on the detention of terrorist suspects. Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 16, 773–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggers, B. (2008). Anti-terrorism control orders in Australia and the United Kingdom: A comparison. Canberra: Parliamentary Library, Department of Parliamentary Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, G. (2007). Control orders and preventative detention—why alarm is misguided. In A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror. Sydney: Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelsen, C. (2005). International human rights on trial-the United Kingdom’s and Australia’s legal response to 9/11. Sydney Law Review, 25(3), 275–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul, B. (2007). Australian administrative law: The human rights dimension. In M. Groves & H. P. Lee (Eds.), Australian administrative law: Fundamentals, principles and doctrines. Cambridge: Cambride University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S. (2005). The UK’s anti-terror legislation and the house of lords: The first skirmish. Human Rights Law Review, 5(2), 403–421. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngi025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. T. H. (2007). Balancing liberty and security? A legal analysis of United Kingdom anti-terrorist legislation. European Journal on Criminal Policy Research, 13, 73–83 (Fear v. Freedom Post 9/11 - the European Perspective).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. (2011). Terrorism and the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (2004). The case for an Australian bill of rights: Freedom in the war on terror. Sydney: UNSW Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Messines Ridge Road 176, Mt Gravatt, QLD, 4122, Australia

    Susan Donkin

Authors
  1. Susan Donkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Donkin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Donkin, S. (2014). The Legal Framework. In: Preventing Terrorism and Controlling Risk. SpringerBriefs in Criminology(), vol 1. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8705-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation