Executive Terrorism Prevention and Risk Control

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


Control orders aim to prevent an individual from engaging in activities that could ultimately lead to them carrying out a terrorist attack. To do so, they impose restrictions or obligations on an individual suspected of terrorist involvement. As the previous legal analysis has highlighted, the degree to which these individuals are being restricted is extraordinary given that they have not been found guilty of any offence. Obligations ranging from regular reporting, travel and communication restrictions, and even curfews are hallmarks of control orders in both the UK and Australia. Having examined control orders from a legal perspective, the following chapter dissects the rationale and mechanisms that underlie them, and in doing so provides several appropriate analogues from both the opportunity theories and SCP. Drawing on the taxonomy of crime controllers and their associated ‘super’ equivalents, here I propose that the control order represents a hybrid ‘executive handler’ capable of directly influencing those who are deemed to pose significant risks to society.


Criminal Justice Terrorist Attack Precautionary Principle Communication Restriction Control Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aradau, C., & van Munster, R. (2009). Exceptionalism and the ‘War on Terror’. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clare, J., & Morgan, F. (2009). Exploring parallels between situational prevention and non-criminological theories for reducing terrorist risk. In J. D. Freilich & G. R. Newman (Eds.), Reducing terrorism through situational crime prevention (Vol. 25, pp. 207–227). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke, R. V. (2008). Situational crime prevention. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. R. (2006). Outsmarting the terrorists. Westport: Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
  5. Emerton, P. (2007). Australia’s terrorism offences—A case against. In A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  7. Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place: Crime prevention studies (Vol. 4, pp. 53–66). Monsey: Ciminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gani, M. (2008). How does it end? Reflections on completed prosecutions under Australia’s anti-terrorism legislation. In M. Gani & P. Mathew (Eds.), Fresh perspectives on the war on terror. Canberra: ANU E Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goldsmith, A. (2008). The governance of terror: Precautionary logic and counterterrorist law reform after September 11. Law & Policy, 30(2), 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lord Carlile of Berriew QC. (2007). The Definition of Terrorism: A Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C., Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. London.Google Scholar
  11. Lynch, A. (2006). Legislating with urgency—the enactment of the anti-terrorism act [no 1] 2005. Melbourne University Law Review, 30(3), 747–781.Google Scholar
  12. Lynch, A. (2007). Achieving security, respecting rights and maintaining the rule of law. In A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lynch, A., & McGarrity, N. (2008). Australia’s Counter-terrorism laws: How neutral laws create fear and anxiety in muslim communities. Alternative Law Journal, 33(4), 225–228.Google Scholar
  14. Lynch, A., & Williams, G. (2006). What price security? Taking stock of australia’s anti-terror laws. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Manningham-Buller, E. (2005). The International Terrorist Threat and the Dilemmas in Countering It. Speech By The Director General Of The Security Service, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, At The Ridderzaal, Binnenhof, The Hague, Netherlands, 1 September 2005., from
  16. Roach, K. (2010). The eroding distinction between intelligence and evidence in terrorism investigations. In N. McGarrity, A. Lynch, & G. Williams (Eds.), Counter-terrorism and beyond: The culture of law and justice after 9/11. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Security Council Resolution 1566, S/RES/1566 (2004), United Nations (2004).Google Scholar
  18. Security Legislation Review Committee. (2006). Report of the security legislation review committee. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Walker, C. (2007). The United Kingdom’s anti-terrorism laws: Lessons for Australia. In A. Lynch, E. MacDonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  21. Zedner, L. (2006). Neither safe nor sound? The perils and possibilities of risk. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 48(3), 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zedner, L. (2007). Preventive justice or pre-punishment? The case of control orders. Current Legal Problems, 60(1), 174–203. doi: 10.1093/clp/60.1.174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zedner, L. (2009). Fixing the future? The pre-emptive turn in criminal justice. In B. McSherry, A. Norrie, & S. Bronitt (Eds.), Regulating deviance: The redirection of criminalisation and the futures of criminal law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Criminology and Criminal JusticeGriffith UniversityMt GravattAustralia

Personalised recommendations