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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll