Publications

NIHRC Briefing on the UK Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Read the NI Human Rights Commission briefing on the UK Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill.

Date produced July 2020.

Below is a summary of the recommendations.

You can also download the full document through the links provided.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) recommends that:

• 2.2 sufficient time is provided for the Bill to be comprehensively scrutinised by the NI Assembly for the purposes of the Legislative Consent Motion and that the views of the NI Assembly are given appropriate weight regarding any required amendments to this Bill.
• 2.7 advises the UK Government to include reference to non-discrimination within the Bill, to emphasis to public authorities that counter-terrorism measures should be implemented in such a way that is compatible with Article 14 ECHR and, in particular, that implementation of these measures should not result in racial profiling.
• 3.5 is concerned that the drafting of clause 1 is too broad. The NIHRC recommends that clause 1 is amended to reflect the principle of proportionality, as required by Article 5 ECHR.
• 3.15 recommends that, to ensure compliance with Article 3 ECHR, clauses 7, 13 and 14 are amended to clarify that sentence reviews by Parole Commissioners are required and to clearly set out the conditions for sentence reviews. Furthermore, it should be guaranteed that these clauses are implemented in such a way that prisoners know at the outset of their sentence what they must do to be considered for release and under what conditions, including when a review of sentence will take place or may be sought.
• 3.20 recommends that clauses 20 and 24 are amended to include reference to the principles of rule of law, legal certainty, proportionality and non-arbitrariness, in line with Article 5 ECHR. Furthermore, when sentences are being extended consideration should be given as to whether the place and conditions of detention are appropriate and offers the opportunities for rehabilitation.
• 3.21 advises that the UK Government has regard to the recent research from the Prison Reform Trust and considers the consequences of longer sentences on individual prisoners, including reoffending rates, overall size of the prison population, and potential overcrowding issues.
• 3.33 recommends repealing clauses 16 and 22. Children are more vulnerable to radicalisation and extremism through targeted recruitment and should be recognised as victims that require protection in line with the UN CRC. This is particularly pertinent in Northern Ireland where paramilitary recruitment of children is a persistent issue.
• 3.38 recommends not introducing the increased maximum sentence to 14 years in clause 26. It is disproportionate and unnecessary given research suggests that it is unlikely to make a difference to the offender reoffending.
• 3.44 recommends that clause 30 is amended to only apply to offenders sentenced from the date of the legislation is introduced. The NIHRC further recommends that the Article 7 rights of prisoners currently serving sentences is adhered to.
• 3.48 recommends that clause 31 is not introduced. This provision is likely to have a detrimental effect on an affected individual’s rehabilitation and prospects of not reoffending.
• 3.55 recommends that clause 34 is not introduced until the accuracy of such tests has been verified through independent research.
• 3.56 advises that if introduced, then such tests are not the only evidence taken into account when reaching a decision linked to the polygraph test and this should be made plain on the face of the Bill. Moreover, the clause should not be applied to those already serving sentences.
• 3.63 recommends the UK Government does not introduce the further Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures proposed in clauses 37 to 43. Instead, the NIHRC recommends the use of methods such as surveillance, or allowing intercepted evidence to be used in court, which would allow suspects to be prosecuted under the normal criminal justice system, and either be convicted or acquitted.
• 3.68 recommends, if the UK Government decides to employ the use of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures, then clause 37 is amended to replace the ‘reasonable suspicion’ threshold with the ‘balance of probabilities’ threshold, in accordance with the recommendations by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism.
• 3.72 recommends that, if the UK Government employ the use of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures, then the two year statutory limit for such measures is maintained, with the intention of bringing charges against the individual.
• 3.75 recommends that clause 47 is amended to uphold the UK Government’s commitment to conduct an independent review of the ‘Prevent’ Strategy within a set deadline. Given the circumstances, this may be an opportunity to amend the existing deadline to something more realistic, but any amendment by way of a timeline must be reasonable and committed to a prompt outcome.