header-logo header-logo

17 October 2018
Issue: 7813 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Terrorism Bill ‘crosses the line’, report says

Proposed offences risk endangering free speech

At least ten clauses in the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Bill breach human rights laws, according to MPs’ and Peers’ second legislative scrutiny report of the Bill.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights said the proposed offence, in clause 1, of expressing an opinion or belief in support of a proscribed organisation, would restrict free speech, including valid debates on de-proscription.

Clause 2, which criminalises the online publication of images of clothing or other articles arousing ‘reasonable suspicion’ the person supports a proscribed organisation, requires extra safeguards, the Committee said. It suggested clause 3, criminalising accessing terrorist material online on one occasion only—one click would be enough to create an offence—be deleted as it breaches the right to receive information and risks criminalising legitimate research and curiosity.

The Committee called for clause 4’s ‘designated area offence’, which criminalises entering or remaining in an area even where no harm is intended, to be deleted or amended. It also sounded concerns about oversight of the retention of suspects’ data, where suspects are not charged or convicted.

Harriet Harman MP, who chairs the Committee, said the Bill ‘still crosses the line on human rights.

‘The government has failed to give us adequate justification for provisions which risk undermining free speech and giving them wide and unaccountable powers’.

The Committee has previously expressed ‘serious concerns’ that the Bill does not comply with fundamental rights, in a report published in July.

Issue: 7813 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll